“They are trying to tell me that Ava is not my child. She started fussing so I began taking her out of the seat. The whole time this security guard is asking me to “give him the baby”. FUCK YOU! There was no way I was handing her over! I tried to walk away, leaving her car seat, the diaper bag, even my wallet…they blocked me! I am screaming for them to get the fuck away from me. I start crying, sobbing, just holding Ava near me. Everytime the security guard put his hands near her I shifted away. Ava is screaming at the top of her lungs by this time. I am screaming to get a manager. I started telling them everything I could think of to prove she is mine. Her birthmark, hospital card in the diaper bag, my ID in my wallet…pictures of her in my wallet. I am screaming that I am going to sue the FUCK out of them and God help them when my husband and father hear about this!

Finally the manager realizes they have the wrong person….. he gives me everything for free… he puts the bags in my card and I basically run out of the store, still holding Ava. I couldnt get out of that parking lot fast enough.”

We’re getting really sick of these stories of unlawful detention by stores. Your rentacop badge doesn’t make you God.

Can’t RTFA because I’m at work (myspace blocked), but I’m guessing this woman went a bit overboard. If the security guard actually reached over and snatched her baby, that’s one thing. Detaining her because her baby looks like the baby that was missing (and exactly how does a random person tell the baby apart from another one?) isn’t cause for alarm.

If HER baby was taken by someone and Wal-Mart didn’t stop the kidnapper, we’d see a blog entry about how they’re soulless demons who wouldn’t help her by stopping that evil woman who stole her child.

And having photos of the kid in your wallet doesn’t make the kid ‘your’ kid, necessarily. You could be a disgruntled nanny, an ex-girlfriend, the kid’s estranged aunt or grandmother… I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen stories on America’s Most Wanted about children being taken by family members.

@rickspeaks: Dude, I hope she does continue to talk like that in front of her daughter when caught in this kind of situation. Her daughter needs to know that mom will always go ape-sh!t insane to protect her. Definitely a good thing for a child to know as far as I’m concerned.

Seriously? Do you have children? Because Hell to the mother fucking no is anyone coming near my girlfriend’s son or our new baby trying to take either away without the mouth of a sailor and the fists of god raining down upon them.

Not to defend Walmart here, but if there’s a missing baby alert store-wide and a woman comes up to the register holding a baby matching the description (hello, all babies look alike), then Security’s going to step in and prevent her from leaving. If they reached over and tried to TAKE the baby from her, then that’s deplorable. But for them to block her from leaving the store, that’s acceptable, IMHO.

Wasn’t it just a few months ago that some story popped up from a mother who locked her kid in a hot car and was mad that nobody was acting fast enough? Now here’s a story where Walmart reacts TOO much?

Did they ever find the original baby that was missing? I sure hope so…

I also don’t tend to take a woman’s myspace blog entry as gospel for anything….

The guard demanded she hand him her baby. Then he reached for the baby. I think the mother did a very proper amount of freaking out. Maybe even not enough freaking out.

That is insane. I would have done the exact same thing. My kids look nothing like me. I have dark curly hair & green eyes, pink skin, my kids both have blond hair, blue eyes, and olive skin. They don’t look like my kids but they are mine. I can easily see where a security guard would think I was full of shit if I said they were my kids. I would have kicked and screamed and freaked out as much as was possible. No one would be able to take my baby from me unless I was dead. I promise you that.

The needless/baseless indignation of the average Consumerist commenter continues to amaze me. Sadly thus far only Rvleshrac is making any sense. This is called a Code Adam – federally mandated lockdown in gov’t facilities and strongly encouraged in private ones.

Now, the guard had no right to try to take the baby away from its mother. But she should not expect to be able to just walk out of the store if someone’s baby is missing. As Rv. said – pretty difficult to identify immediately if that baby is the missing one or not, especially in a store filled with clothes that could alter the appearance of said child.

If you are so important that you can’t be stopped in a public store for 5 minutes while they find a missing child, please do humanity a favor and DIAF. When did you become so important that you can’t be bothered in the least during someone else’s crisis?

Run don’t walk to the nearest attorney. You need to get any video of the incident before they trash it. Also that security guard isn’t going to be a Wally World employee much longer so you need to get him subpeonaed also.

In all seriousness now, she has to be applauded and the way Walmart was acting was ridiculous. Don’t try and take a child from a mother, besides alot of babies look the same if not very similar, how can you make those kind of judgments?

Her reaction was perfectly on course, I bet at home she had to hold back her husband from going there and kicking some ass.

Ahh… walmart… the fault is with the security guard here. It was definitely wrong to ask the woman to “hand over” the child. The right thing to do would have been to explain the situation and ask the woman to wait. I’m sure any mother would understand the situation and wait with her child until it could be confirmed.

Um, If you think the baby is the abducted baby then you call police ASAP. You could detain her by telling her what they thought or follow the woman out and see where she goes. Chances are she went into a car, so you see the car and get the license plate and give it to the cops.

@MBPharmD: I agree with your 100%. The store also handled the situation totally wrong. They should have explained to the woman that there was a baby missing, they were checking all people with children, and they needed to verify that Ava was her child. The guard should have NEVER reached for the baby or demanded she hand the baby over to her. The store was within it’s rights, as was the mother to refuse.

It’s just another example of people’s hearts being in the right places but their heads being up their asses.

Security guard is trying to verify it is her baby. She is screaming obscenities at him, making no sense whatsoever. She attempts to dash out of the store, leaving everything behind (not suspicious at all). She is apparently screaming obscenities left and right at the top of her lungs, making a confusing situation much worse. Somehow, I don’t think things happened the way she described.

Also, you aren’t very patriotic. If you were, you would have handed over your baby so they could use it for child labor instead of being forced to use inferior Chinese child labor.

I think this is why Home Depot fires employees for going after thieves. As much as we’d like to think the employee is noble for going after some scumbag, what if they have the wrong person? Then you’ve got a case of unlawful detention Better to call the cops and let them deal with it, imo.

If I was the mother, I would have the baby in one hand and my 1911 in the other. Take my kid from me? Over my rotting corpse.

The guard fucked up. He has no business getting involved. Security guards job is to OBSERVE and REPORT. Nothing more. He should have let her leave, and recorded the make model and lic plate of the car and pass it along to the police. The only exception to that is if the missing kids mother was with the guard and told him that was her baby. Then he could take more action. Till then, he does not have the facts and is taking the law into his own hands.

Trying to forcibly remove a child from her mothers arms is a violent threatening act.

@jwissick: I don’t know… I’d be pretty pissed if someone took my kids from the store and the security told me, “yeah, I saw them leave. I took down the plate and car make and model for ya!” The kidnappers could have done any number of horrible things by the time LAPD bothered to show up.

The guard screwed up BIG time. When a ‘Code Adam’ is called NOBODY enters or leaves the store until it is cleared (the missing child is found) so that everyone can e questioned if there was a real incident.

You do NOT take the child – you keep them there. It is NOT unlawful imprisonment – it’s protecting the kids.

I was in a store once when I heard a code adam called. No employees were near the door so I stopped people from leaving myself for a couple minutes.

Walmart needs to start apologizing and doing whatever it takes to make her happy (assuming the story is real) and the guard needs to get a lot of Special High Intensity Training (S.H.I.T) – all that he can take ad more.

If a store is under a Code Adam (lost child) then what’s supposed to happen is this:

Entrances/Exits/bathrooms get locked down, guards posted at as many as can be covered. People are allowed out one at a time as they finish shopping, but if any are with children that match the description (or anything even close, snatchers can shave a head or change an outfit in seconds flat) they are asked to come over to where the person who lost the child is. If they recognize the child, police are called. Otherwise they’re free to go.

Without context or more backstory it just looks like the employees had little/no training on how to handle a Code Adam and totally borked it up.

The mother was completely within her rights as a human and a mother to go apeshit on anyone threatening her child. I don’t even have kids but I would do the same.

If you are so important that you can’t be stopped in a public store for 5 minutes while they find a missing child, please do humanity a favor and DIAF. When did you become so important that you can’t be bothered in the least during someone else’s crisis?

–

Stopping someone is one thing. Trying to steal your child from you with no proof is another. It is apologist like you that give the rent-a-cops a delusional thought that they can do what they damn well please because you are in a store they work at.

Feel free to be a coward all you want and blaim the poor lady who had to defend herself and baby. There are people out there who are not like you thankfully and will defend and protect them, if they can.

Yes, reaching for/trying to take a baby is totally unreasonable, but what nobody had addressed yet is how, if handled correctly, should the mother identified the kid as her own? Are all moms required to carry around a birth certificate now? Is that even proof enough???

@Steel_Pelican: Stop the kidnapper, not some random woman who just happened to have her baby with her.

It was not necessary for the guard to try to take the child from her. If that is what happened then he was wrong. Like micahd said, explaining the situation should have been sufficient. They could have had the other mother come over and confirm that it wasn’t her child instead of the guard trying to take the kid away.

I don’t think it was wrong that Wal-Mart reacted – but rather their reaction was poor.

“Hand over the baby, ma’am. Just hand over the baby.” Like it was a grenade or something.

Come on! No parent should ever stand for something like that! You don’t just let strangers take your baby away from you, even if they have a shiny rent-a-cop badge, and especially if it’s in a Wal-Mart!

I’m sure that if the Wal-Mart security guy took her aside, and explained the situation to her, and politely requested that she provide some proof that the child was hers, then it would have been much less painful. I would think that any mother would sympathize with the cause and want to help out – because if her baby had been taken, she’d want the same thing.

There are probably about 800 alternate methods Wal-Mart could have used to properly handle the situation. Instead they relied on poor judgment, and their patent customer-comes-last(tm) philosophy.

@Steel_Pelican: But as other people have stated here — there is a huge difference between stopping someone at the door to verify their identity and the identity of their children vs reaching for someone’s baby and saying “give me your baby”.

Stopping someone for a few minutes under these circumstances is perfectly appropriate. Trying to take their baby is illegal, unconscionable and so completely beyond the acceptable standards of decency in our society.

Sure the store might be looking for a missing baby and maybe they should stop all with babies until they find them, but once the security guard asked the woman to hand over her baby, she was absolutely right to scream her lungs out. That changed the situation. That is a fight or flight response. She tried the fight response with her screaming, when that didn’t work she tried the flight response. In her thinking, who cares about her stuff when someone threatens her daughter. You don’t think, hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t leave my stuff because that might look suspicious. You react.

If is was me, I would done similar to this woman and told him to fuck off, but instead of running after that didn’t work, he would have felt the raining down of fists on his head (well one fist as I held the baby).

They would have been calling an ambulance for that security guard if I had been that women.

The proper approach would have been to not let anyone leave the store, including this woman until the adam alert is sorted out. Not yanking her baby out of her arms like it was a $9 CD player she was trying to heist.

@BrockBrockman: And others:
Quote “There are probably about 800 alternate methods Wal-Mart could have used to properly handle the situation. Instead they relied on poor judgment, and their patent customer-comes-last(tm) philosophy”

I somehow doubt Walmart has a policy to do it like this. The guard screwed up. It’s Walmart’s responsibility, but I don’t blame Walmart. Jus hold their wallet responsible.

@HalOfBorg: Umm. That IS called unlawful imprisonment. Preventing someone from going where they want to go is illegal. Walmart has no right to prevent people from leaving unless they WITNESS that person committing a crime. They are not law enforcement and have NO training or way to tell if they have the right baby. What are they going to use? The Walmart made in China Finger print kit? or Walmart 2 for 1 discount DNA test?

You said you stopped people from leaving a store? Unless you can produce a police ID, you try that shit with me and you are going to end up wearing nice pretty police bracelets. I WILL make a citizens arrest and press charges.

Try to physically stop me from leaving with my kids? You will get a face full of pepper spray. Try to forcibly take my kid? You will get a nice look at the business end of my 1911. I do not obey people who do not wear police badges with out damn good reason.

I quite seriously hope that your children are kidnapped, and that the security guard stands there while someone is running off with them. I’m sure that nothing bad, like sexual abuse, torture, or murder, will happen between the time that they go missing and the three hours later when the police actually find the abandoned vehicle, which was likely stolen, in the parking lot where the kidnapper switched cars.

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t want people to help you when your children are missing, but scream, curse, and threaten bodily harm when other people are trying to find their kids.

As the rest of us said earlier, it is one thing if the security guard actually snatched the child out of her arms, but it is another thing entirely if she overreacted – which is extremely likely.

We’re not talking about letting someone walk out with a $5 media-reader here, we’re talking about someone’s child.

You couldn’t be any less correct about what a Code Adam is or what store employees are expected to do during one. Doors don’t get automatically locked, and “associates are not expected to – and are instructed not to – expose themselves or the child to physical harm. If it is not reasonable
to detain the suspected abductor or cause him or her to abandon the child, the associate is expected to get a description of the person, car
type, license plate number, departure route, and related information.” See [www.snopes.com]

@halfofborg, “… I stopped people from leaving myself for a couple of minutes” is a) ridiculous, and b) actionable. Might as well wear a t-shirt that says “sue me” if you’re going to do it again.

@bluegus32: “She needs to sue them immediately for false imprisonment. That was totally unacceptable and they need to be taught a lesson.”

You know, I’m conflicted about this. On one hand, yes, it was probably embarrassing and inconvenient for this woman. On the other hand, what if she really HAD taken someone else’s child? Can you imagine what we’d all be saying if the story went like this instead?:

“Today at WalMart, a woman was detained because it was suspected that she might have had a child that had been reported missing in the store. After screaming a cursing at store personnel, she was allowed to leave the store. Upon review of the security tapes, it was determined that the woman had kidnapped the child. The search is ongoing, and anyone with any information is encouraged to call the police….”

We’d all be screaming bloody murder that they didn’t hold that woman until the police got there.

So, where’s the line? When is it too much?

On another note, this is yet another example of crap reporting by the bloggers. No mention is made of whether or not they were detaining ALL children under a certain age, or just this woman. No mention of whether the child that WAS missing was found.

I’m sorry, but I can’t in good conscience agree with the blogger’s summary of “We’re getting really sick of these stories of unlawful detention by stores. Your rentacop badge doesn’t make you God.”. A CHILD’S LIFE WAS POTENTIALLY AT STAKE. Under those circumstances, better safe than sorry.

Do you have kids Ben? If you do, and one goes missing in a store, I sure hope the store personnel don’t risk an “unlawful detention” and just let whoever it is walk out of the store with you kid. Somehow I bet when they tell you “Hey, we didn’t want to risk being crucified about “unlawful detention” on some blog!” you aren’t going to think “Well, gee – that’s a great reason to let some stranger walk out of the store with my kid. Better the child be kidnapped, abused, tortured and killed than someone be inconvenienced for 10 minutes, or even for an hour!”

I don’t think the security guard had the right to demand a child. He should have stepped up to the woman, asked for ID, explained the situation and perhaps things could have been cleared up properly.

Was she overreacting? She was in a Wal-Mart for heaven’s sake! Worst case scenario? They call a few of her family members or friends, verify the child’s identity, or find the actual lost child while she is waiting and she woman is inconvenienced. I wouldn’t hand over my child, but I’d try to not escalate the situation by screaming obscenities. Not that I may not react with an obscenity or two if the security guard was trying to take my baby, but if she was still in control, acting suspiciously and defensively to a “law enforcement officer” within Wal-Mart kind of makes things worse. In a way, I think she made the situation worse for herself.

Oh, and one problem that emcompasses all discussion is the fact that this is all one sided and all speculation is based on one woman’s myspace rant. We’ve all been in Wal-Mart, we all know many of them are crap, and can believe that Wal-Mart employees could do this, but to completely believe the one sided argument would be folly.

@MBPharmD: Now, the guard had no right to try to take the baby away from its mother. But she should not expect to be able to just walk out of the store if someone’s baby is missing.

Nonsense. She should have every expectation of being able to walk out of the store, because she has every right to leave.

Store employees do not have police powers.

The local rent-a-cop security dood has no more legal authority over this woman than any other citizen does. He doesn’t get to detain people that “fit the description,” he doesn’t get to declare an area a crime scene, and he sure as hell doesn’t have the authority to try to take a child away from her mother because there’s a lost child in the vicinity.

The willingness of many to mindlessly submit to any perceived authority that crosses their path is truly mind boggling.

@RvLeshrac: Several people in the comments have explained standard Code Adam procedures, which are an effective and accepted system for dealing with lost children in retail stores, and which do not involve walking up to random people and saying “That baby’s not yours, give it to me.” I’m really not sure why you feel the need to defend the security guard when it’s obvious that this wouldn’t have happened if he had followed Code Adam protocols instead of going off half-cocked and accusing random women of kidnapping.

I don’t think any of us know what really happened here. After reading her myspace, seeing her foul language, working in retail in the past, seeing the nuts who are out there, noticing she is on government assistance, blah blah blah. Yea, I don’t know what happened. I feel sorry for the mother, but I’m putting her on noticing for being suspect to part of the problem. Customers typically escalate bad situations…

@RvLeshrac: That’s the price you have to be willing to pay to live in a free society. The rent-a-cop does not have kidnap training. He is not armed. The kidnapper may be armed. By confronting a desperate and prolly mentally ill kidnapper with out having training, he is putting the kids life at risk.

The guards job is to OBSERVE AND REPORT. NOTHING MORE. That is why he is paid very little. He does not have the training. He could AND DID make things WORSE!!! He is trained to observe and record what happened and be able to pass that information along, accurately, to authorities. That is why he is a GUARD and not sworn law enforcement.

This is every parents nightmare, and foul language or not I commend her. Loser wanna-be cops who fell through the economy until they became rent-a-cops need to learn their lesson about being a “Security Guard”, not a cop.

FYI the appropriate response for the cop in a true amber alert situation would have been to lock the doors of the store so that nobody gets out, call the cops, and have them sort it out. Sorry about that for you unlawfull restraint folks, but this is the only way you can ensure that a snatched child doesn’t get out. But it’s the COPS job, not the rent-a-cop’s.

This has probably already been mentioned, but I got tired of reading some of the idiotic posts.

But please consider:

Option 1 – “Ma’am, there has been a missing child alert. We would like you to stay here for a moment, as we do not want to allow any children of the missing child’s age to leave the store until verified they are not the missing child. As a mother, I hope you understand. It will only be a moment.”

@RvLeshrac: Several people in the comments have explained standard Code Adam procedures, which are an effective and accepted system for dealing with lost children in retail stores, and which do not involve walking up to random people and saying “That baby’s not yours, give it to me.” I’m really not sure why you feel the need to defend the security guard when it’s obvious that this wouldn’t have happened if he had followed Code Adam protocols instead of going off half-cocked and accusing random women of kidnapping.

–

I’m willing to bet that RvLeshrac wants to be some type of hero LEO and has only managed to get to rent-a-cop status.

The squawking about you not being able to have it both ways just screams clueless and udder idiocy.

You *HAVE* both ways by approaching the person, explaining what is going on and assuring the person that they are only doing this for their own protection. You don’t strut your way up to some woman and demand her baby.

@Murph1908: I still consider option 2 has being highly suspect as to how the situation went down. I would rather see a little more media coverage before I start running out and embracing this myspace blog post as absolute fact. If anything, it seems like publicity to aid in a settlement.

Nice try at character assassination. How did you figure she’s on public assistance, and what on earth does that have to do with whether or not Wal-Mart tried to take her baby away from her? Or is that you just figure poor people have some kind of light-beer version of civil rights?

When I worked at a hospital, we periodically had lockdowns wherein all exits would be closed and nobody with babies or any method of hiding a baby (large bag, etc) would be allowed out the door unless cleared. Usually it was an alert caused by someone taking a baby wearing a sort of anti-theft ankle bracelet too close to an exit and setting off the alarms. I do think the guard went too far in reaching for the baby (if he indeed did) but the procedure of locking down a building if a missing infant or child is reported is normal.

I’ve seen John Walsh on tv talking about what a young child should do if someone tries to kidnap them. He always the best thing to do is scream and do what you can to draw attention. The mother was doing just that, and she got the attention of a manager. The guard absolutely did the wrong thing. The manager should of been standing there to explain the situation calmly to her; no doubt her reaction would of been different. Good for her for what she did.

I’ve seen John Walsh on tv talking about what a young child should do if someone tries to kidnap them. He always the best thing to do is scream and do what you can to draw attention. The mother was doing just that, and she got the attention of a manager. The guard absolutely did the wrong thing. The manager should of been standing there to explain the situation calmly to her; no doubt her reaction would of been different. Good for her for what she did.

–

With all the Wal*Mart hate here at The Consumerist, I’m a really shocked that there are people who actually want a mother to hand their child over to the bottom of the barrel losers who do security for Wal*Mart.

What kind of idiot would hand over their child to such a person? It boggles the mind.

Although the situation may have been slightly exaggerated by the mother, I don’t doubt for a second that the security guard acted above the law. I’ve seen them (security guards) act as if they’re police or BETTER than police in terms of authority.

Security guards are, realistically, cop hopefuls who didn’t have what it took to actually be a cop. Apparently the bottom rung is too high a reach for these people. And so, they assume an alternate authoritative role that doesn’t require a high school education or the ability to read, and they act as they think they would had they made momma proud and got that real police badge (instead of the sticker they currently wear).

I hope this mother sues the crap out of Wal*Mart (note the brand-approved asterisk I used).

So, on the one hand, The Consumerist wants everyone to take them seriously, for example their recent bid to be included in Google News. On the other hand, The Consumerist uses sites like MySpace as news sources.

Am I really the only one who sees a problem with this, or am I just the first to point it out here?

So you’re saying that if I kidnap a child, just because they aren’t following procedures, I have the RIGHT to tell him off and walk out of the store with the kidnapped child. Nice. I’m sure many kidnappers will take your advice to heart.

@RvLeshrac: Couldn’t have set up a straw man argument better myself.In this idiot’s (RvLeshrac) view there are only two options:1) Let authority figures do what ever they wantor2) Have total anarchySo there you have it folks, give up your (babies/dignity/civil liberties/whatever) or there is no way to keep them safe.The correct response is to “over react” to these kind of abuses from people with no legal obligation or right to detain us, seize personal property and even children.What exactly is beyond the pale for these apologists?

Personally, when faced with this situation, I think the best course of action would have been to calmly say “I understand there is a child missing. This one, however, is mine. Due to the nature of the situation, I’ll be happy to wait for the police to arrive and verify that this is my child. In the meantime, since I’ve agreed to wait here, I’d suggest you keep looking for the child that is actually missing”.

No, it’s not “her responsibility” to remain calm, or even to take into account there there is another child missing and possibly in danger.

On the other hand, the MORE of a scene she makes, the more time they spend on her, and the less time they spend looking for the actual missing child.

This is why she should have been carrying some form of self-defense. I’m not so sure that the security guard deserved a bullet, but a good blast of pepper spray to the eyes could have jogged his memory regarding proper Code Adam procedures.

“I tried to walk away, leaving her car seat, the diaper bag, even my wallet…they blocked me! I am screaming for them to get the fuck away from me. I start crying, sobbing, just holding Ava near me. “

The lady sounds crazy as hell, to be perfectly honest.

This is not the reaction of a sane, reasonable person. Most people would say “no. this is my baby, here look at all the items that are baby related in my cart, look at my baby pictures, this is my kid, good luck finding the one that is missing.”

Obviously i am not suggesting she hand anything to anyone. That is also unreasonable. but there is not questions that the wrong way to react is to flip out and cry and leave your belongings making it look like you’re trying to get away. Her reaction made her look worse than if she was calm and collected.

If anyone here thinks her instability is the way to react to any situation at all.. well. You’re crazy too.

Also, nice work using MySpace bulletins as news.

I have a hot lead on how you can get a free $100 Macy’s gift card and the coolest ringtones ever! I’ll check back in when i get more details!

@dbeahn: Yes. If they did not OBSERVE you kidnapping the child they MUST let you go. They can record your info and lic plate, but they MUST let you go. You can not deprive someone of their rights because you SUSPECT they committed a crime. Innocent till PROVEN guilty.

@Rectilinear Propagation: “I want to know if they put out the Amber Alert over the intercom. The way the mom’s post reads it sounds like she didn’t hear anything about it until after the fact…”

If you go read the blog post she made, she says that while she was in the store, she did wonder why they kept announcing “Code Something” over the intercom. She just didn’t know what it was until they explained it meant they had a missing child.

If you read her post, she also basically assumes that some bad parent abandoned their child, saying “Evidentally someone in the store had their baby in a cart and someone rolled the cart away. Moron parent if you ask me if someone can just roll your child away from you and now you’ve misplaced your baby… but… FUCK…. dont get me wrong I feel bad for the mother and I was wondering while in the store why they kept saying code “something” over the intercom but HELLO, how can someone roll a cart away with your baby in it and you dont notice! PEOPLE WAL-MART’S PRICES AREN’T THAT GOOD!”

It’s enough to make me hope that someone does take her kid, and that the people around her tell her she’s just a bad parent for letting it happen.

Yeah, we use Code Adam at work, and NOWHERE in our instructions does it say to tell someone to hand over a baby. In fact, it expressly says we cannot and should not forcibly keep someone from leaving.

If for some reason we think someone may be leaving the store with the child in question, we are to attempt to detain using customer service (ie selling an item or product), and notify authorities if they leave, but never, ever say something like “give me your baby”.

Sounds like this fool panicked under pressure and is about to get fired.

@indecision: @thisaintsweettea: If you don’t understand Web 2.0 that’s ok.Let me help you out – A consumer oriented site in a Web 2.0 framework, like this one, wouldn’t have to wait to get news from the “big guys” (CNN, whatever). The news on this site is generated by users, from the ground up like submissions or from bloggers or tipsters who link to stories.Get with it, if the site is for consumers (as the title would have you believe) then consumers would be your most trusted source.

@thisaintsweettea: No it is not rational. It is the fight or flight instinct. What she did is more than likely what YOU would do in a sim situation. Adrenalin enters the system, time compresses. You are preparing to either fight or flee. The brain shuts some sections down. Blood flows away from some areas in favor of other areas.

@bluegus32: Move away. If they actually surround you, that’s when you, yes, do what she did: Scream and make a scene as loudly as possible. You can’t touch them, that’s assault, but you sure as hell CAN make other people look at you. That’s what you WANT. Witnesses tend to stop kidnappers (which is what this was — store personnel aren’t cops. If they wanted her actually detained they have to call the police).

ONE-SIDED STORY. Maybe the guard asked for the baby OR maybe he just attempted to stop her and she was late for her something and freaked.

I, for one, just don’t believe that the security guard is gonna demand she turn over the baby. Even if you are power-tripping, that just doesn’t make sense. If anything, he probably asked her to stop and when she said no and tried to get out, he may have gotten suspicious.

I think the ‘consumerists’ who are so appalled at this, more so just don’t like being inconvenienced by a business, and especially not be a security officer at a business. ME, ME, ME… If a baby really does go missing in a store, it’s no longer just about you, and believe it or not, different ‘laws’ do take effect. Thank goodness for the common sense that does exist in our law.

Well, I’m gonna applaud the guard for at least stopping the woman. A lost baby is a big, serious, issue. I bet if she had acted calm and just stood there and cooperated while things were straightened out, there would be no problem. This is assuming the guard doesn’t try and snatch the baby, which sounds highly unlikely.

You can’t equate a child with a receipt. That isn’t logical. I am one who feels that showing a receipt is no big deal and doesn’t rise to the level of a constitutional/civil rights violation. However, this certainly does. I support the woman 100%. I can certainly understand how she would panic. On the other hand, trying to get out of there so quickly that you leave your purse and the car seat makes you look awfully suspicious. Walmart should have just asked her to step to the side for a moment to have a discussion. Explain that a child is missing in the store and they aren’t sure this isn’t the baby. I think the woman would have understood. After a little while, when they verified the child is hers, then send her on her way. Trying to grab the kid is considered attempted kidnapping, IMHO. I would still sue.

@RvLeshrac: Sorry I disagree and in a state where I have my concealed carry permit if the guard touched my kid he would be eating bullets. If I felt my child’s well being was being threatened the law would be on my side.

She then excuses herself before giving me my total and uses the phone at her register to ask for assistance and gives some “code”.

@dbeahn: I meant before she got to the register. I was wondering if they alerted the entire store that a child was missing before the confrontation takes place.

@indecision, @thisaintsweettea: Most of the stories of the “this is my experience with company X” are just e-mails sent to Consumerist. Would her word be more reliable if she e-mailed that post to Consumerist?

I hope someone snatches your child (or niece or nephew or friend’s kid or whatever) and after the body is found, it comes out that someone had stopped the kidnapper, but they HAD to let them go rather than hold them for 10 minutes until the cops got there, because even tho they were commiting a crime, they’re INNOCENT.

By the way, you might consider getting an education. How the hell can someone NOT be detained or arrested until PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW BY A JURY OF THEIR PEERS as called for under our system? I can’t wait to hear you explain that one.

The way our system works is that the police CAN detain a suspect or “person of interest” for a specific amount of time for questioning etc.

Technically, ANYONE has the right to make a citizen’s arrest, depending on the state laws that apply. Here’s a brief summary from Wikipedia:

“All states other than North Carolina permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. Note particularly that American citizens do not have the authorities or the legal protections of the police, and are strictly liable before both the civil law and criminal law for any violation of the rights of another.”

I don’t know what Maryland law states, and I bet you don’t either. In other words, you’re wrong – they CAN detain her (anyone can) by making a citizen’s arrest. The catch, of course, is that there are consequences if it’s an erronious or malicious citizen’s arrest.

I love how everyone gets so (understandably) outraged at this when the story is presented from the customer’s standpoint.

And yet, when the story is about some poor hapless home depot employee who was fired for detaining a suspected shoplifter, everyone gets outraged that he was fired.

Make up your fucking minds people, either store employees should be allowed to physically detain suspected customers (they shouldn’t), or stores should have the right to fire employees who try to pull shit like this.

And don’t give me that “well it WAS her baby” crap, the point is the employees didn’t know.

@Rectilinear Propagation: “I meant before she got to the register. I was wondering if they alerted the entire store that a child was missing before the confrontation takes place.”

According to her story, she heard the announcements over and over while shopping. So yes, she was aware that something was going on, she just didn’t know what Code Adam was, and didn’t find out until she was told. Her choice not to ask someone what was going on, but she’s pretty clear that she knew SOMETHING was going on while she was out in the store doing her shopping, before she got to the register.

quote: “give him the baby”. FUCK YOU! There was no way I was handing her over! I tried to walk away, leaving her car seat, the diaper bag, even my wallet…they blocked me! I am screaming for them to get the fuck away from me. I start crying, sobbing, just holding Ava near me. Ava is screaming at the top of her lungs by this time./quote

@dbeahn: You WISH harm on innocent people just to make a point??? Seek professional help.

I am going to assume that you are just frustrated and answer your question.

As to your comment, I am educated on this subject. I work very closely with police officers. I help train them. You are simply wrong.

The mistake you are making is that you are equating a rentacop with a POLICE officer. They are not the same. Police has power to arrest and detain upon suspicion of a crime. A rent a cop can ONLY detain IF he WITNESSES a crime HIMSELF.

A RENTACOP IS NOT A POLICE OFFICER!!!!!

Anyone can detain her IF and ONLY if they WITNESS the crime in progress. Since no crime was committed by Stacy (you can’t kidnap your own child after all), How can one be a witness to something that didn’t happen? How then does it meet the requirement for a citizens arrest????? Answer: It Doesn’t.

@thisaintsweettea: It is, actually, the correct thing to do when threatened and prevented from getting away from whoever is threatening you. You may look like a crazy person, but hey, you got witnesses, didn’t you?

This whole “It is illegal to detain anyone” stuff is a crock. Any citizen, at anytime, can detain any other citizen, so long as you believe they have committed a crime. And you must have called the property authorities and be waiting for them to arrive. It’s called a citizen’s arrest. It is not unlawful to detain someone who is suspected of committing a crime. The police routinely hold people for questioning, although the there is a time limit. It is only unlawful to detain someone who isn’t a suspect. It isn’t recommended in most cases as you put yourself at risk, but it isn’t unlawful. Unlawful detainment is to keep someone who isn’t a suspect, for an indefinite amount of time without alerting the authorities.

Not an LEO, have no desire to be. Walk right by the idiots at BB/etc who want my receipt.

Totally against them detaining you for that.

This is a kid, though. The problem with all of you who don’t work retail is that you don’t seem to understand how stupid people can act, constantly. I’ve said repeatedly that IF THE RENT-A-COP SECURITY ATTEMPTED TO TAKE HER CHILD FROM HER, SHE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE ANGRY AND UPSET.

Let me say that again, just so you knuckleheads can grasp it:

IF THE RENT-A-COP SECURITY ATTEMPTED TO TAKE HER CHILD FROM HER, SHE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE ANGRY AND UPSET.

I *HIGHLY* doubt that this is what happened. It would require idiocy of a magnitude never before seen in the operation of a retail store. They more than likely attempted to detain her for just a few minutes until the other mother could identify whether or not the child was hers, and attempted to explain the situation. Then, she more than likely went apeshit and stated screaming at them.

Could they probably find a better way to handle the missing kid? Sure. Could the mother have not escalated things by acting in a calm manner, recognizing that there was probably another mother in the store OUT OF HER MIND with worry for her missing child? Definitely.

The problem is that we have a SINGLE account here from one of the individuals involved. For all that anyone actually knows about the situation, she could be insane and thinks that someone else’s baby is hers.

Generally, I like Consumerist articles. Consumers have a right to be irritated by various corporate policies, procedures, blunders, etc. But an account from a single individual, with absolutely no counterpoint whatsoever, about how some evil store attempted to “steal” her baby, with no corroborating evidence, not even any circumstantial evidence, smacks of sensationalism.

As I posted previously: “I think the best course of action would have been to calmly say “I understand there is a child missing. This one, however, is mine. Due to the nature of the situation, I’ll be happy to wait for the police to arrive and verify that this is my child. In the meantime, since I’ve agreed to wait here, I’d suggest you keep looking for the child that is actually missing”.”

If we are to take her word on the story, both she and Walmart were wrong. Someone lost their baby. it might have been stupid of them, but it was probably the scariest time in their life. The security guard probably had no training for this type of situation, so when he saw the woman picking up the baby as she saw him walking over, he got nervous that she was going to run. If he asked her to give him the baby, that was completely wrong of him. The woman’s reaction was way worse though. She could have just calmly explained that it was her baby, and if she was asked for proof, she could have just given it to him. I’m aware she doesn’t legally have to, but this isn’t really the time to stand up for your rights. The parents of the missing baby are probably imagining all the things that could be happening to it, and it’s just wrong to refuse to help them. Instead of doing what a reasonable person would do, she does what a kidnapper would do. She tries to dash out of the store, screaming obscenities, and leaving all her things behind. Even though she was mostly at fault, the manager still offers to give her all her things for free, which she accepts. That should be the end of it. Also, posting a rant on myspace isn’t the most credible thing ever.

But an account from a single individual, with absolutely no counterpoint whatsoever, about how some evil store attempted to — with no corroborating evidence, not even any circumstantial evidence….

@RvLeshrac: By removing the words “steal” her baby that just turned into a description of almost every consumer submitted story on this web site.

Most of the people submitting stories don’t have photos, video, or audio recordings. They only have their word. That’s how this site works. This is not new. Nobody is going to get confused and think a Myspace page equals the Truth. We KNOW it’s only one side of the story.

@dbeahn: Fine. Then I wish that you are falsely accused of a crime that you didn’t commit and are forced through months, if not years, of legal hassles and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees just because some rent a cop exceeds his authority and decides you are the guilty one for the crime he did not witness.

You probably can not see this but the guard endangered Ava’s life by interjecting himself into a situation he knew nothing about. He fucked up royally by exceeding his authority. If you can’t see that, do not bother to become a security guard. You do not have the mind set and will just get yourself into trouble.

Now quit trying to be an arm chair expert.

Benjamin Franklin said “that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.” I agree with him.

For the love of god people. just calmly hand the baby over. I mean the guy had a blue smock and everything, what more could you ask for. And I’m sorry but I have to side with the people who are hoping that everyone who disagrees with handing the baby over has their children kidnapped, abused, and murdered. I mean how else will you learn to respect the smock.

@jwissick: Code Adam called is all the DAMN GOOD reason I need. I’m not talking taking kids – but you are NOT getting past me until the code is cleared or store employees take over. Just try to find a jury that would convict me – or a prosecutor who’d even try.

I never in a zillion years thought I’d say this, but… I’d really like to hear Wal-Mart’s side of the story. Even if it happened exactly as described, the guard was an idiot and that woman is batshit insane.

@thisaintsweettea: do you have children? If someone demanded that I hand over my child(ren) to them, I would go from calm to irate instantly and I would tell them to go f#ck themselves. If they continued to insist that I surrender my child, I would threaten physical harm, scream at the top of my lungs, and do everything in my power to ensure that my child stayed with me. Anyone who would do any less does not love their children enough.

@Chicago7: Exactly. Where’s the sense these days? People don’t mind if something happens in a store and a security guard comes and says “Listen, there was a baby ‘stolen’ here in the store, we’re concerned, I’d just like to ask you a few questions to verify that the baby is yours. I know its weird, but you can certainly understand our concern.”

It’s a reasonable request considering the circumstances, but this guard, if what she says is 100% true, was way out of line.

Rent-A-cops like this should be removed from their position and disbarred from this line of work permanently. It’s obvious this particular ‘security guard’ can’t handle his job, nor patrons with any degree of professionalism or common sense.

@Buran: Actually, in a Code Adam alert, the store has the right to apply “reasonable efforts to delay their departure without putting the child, staff, or visitors at risk. Law enforcement will be notified and given details about the person accompanying the child.” This is if the child is with a person other than a parent or custodial guardian.

A security guard at Walmart doesn’t have the authority in this situation to determine whether the woman’s telling the truth, regardless of the “proof” she gives him. So hence the need to block someone from leaving until police arrive. This isn’t unlawful. They weren’t “detaining” her, they were “delaying” her. Did she get taken into a back room? No. Did she get handcuffed and hauled off by a store employee? No! She was blocked from leaving. That is NOT detainment. Learn the difference.

This is such a one sided story and I’m not about to put ALL of my belief into some whisky-tango MySpace user. Sorry!

@Buran: I agree with you 100%. I’m just sayin’ that if it were me, I’d get violent. I am not a violent man. But when someone threatens my kids, I go ape-sh!t. I know me. I would’ve gotten physical. And I don’t care that it’s against the law.

@HalOfBorg: And just try to find a jury who’d convict the person who used, and this is legal, force to push you out of their way (or otherwise disable you) and stop you from illegally detaining them. Someone who is threatened may legally use the amount of force required to escape.

I’d say, if you’re male, a good knee in the you-know-where would do a great job of leaving you rolling in agony on the floor while the person you tried to detain walked away.

@HalOfBorg: Some yo-yo called a code adam!! Stop the world! I know several prosecutors that would try it. But they would give that the pepper spray bath I would give you was enough. Guilty? Maybe not. But unless you are a millionaire, you would end up broke from legal fees and have an arrest record. Your life would be screwed.

I would get past you. If the pepper spray didn’t do the trick, I know a few hundred other ways go get past a doofus on a power trip.

The ends do not justify the means. You can not deprive someone of their rights just because some minimum wage yo-yo calls a ‘code adam’.

How do you even know that ‘Code adam’ means there is a missing kid? How do you know that it does not mean there is a shipment of Adam Ant CDs that need to be signed for? Did you write the policy for that store? Then you could be wrong when you hear code adam. It would be a shame if you got hurt trying to protect some crappy Adam Ant CDs because you got on a power trip. And yeah…. that would be easy to convict.

You can’t stop people from leaving willy-nilly. You have to have authority. And YOU, unless you have police ID, have ZILCH and I have all the power in the world and in law to get past you.

When your kid goes missing, and they find his/her body stuffed into the bouncy-ball bin, you’ll be happy to know that all the people who WERE in the store had their rights protected (and a few minutes of their lives saved), and are all gone now.

If the rent a cop would have gone up to the lady, explain the situation and asked if there was anything she could produce to show that baby was hers this situation would have been so much different. That rent-a-cop deserves to be fired and sued so hard that his kids, kids, kids, kids will feel the effect. She’s innocent until proven guilty and even in the most extreme case the rent a cop should have called the police and asked the lady to hang around until the REAL cops came to investigate. Just because 1 mother couldn’t watch her child it doesn’t mean the good mothers should even be effected.

@HalOfBorg: Ok. Screw everyone and their rights… It’s for the children.

You’re on a power trip.. You can either get off the trip yourself, or someone will take you off your trip when you push it too far…. While most people would prolly stop if you told them to… if you tried to stop me, you would get hurt… I do not take orders from you. Enuf said.

If she had just calmed down and handled this in the appropriate manner things would not have gotten out of hand. They question her so she drops everything and bolts for the door? That’s suspicious, I would have thought she was trying to run too. So she freaks out and it’s Wal-marts fault? I bet if it was her baby that was missing she would have wanted Wal-mart to question everybody there too.

I have to side with the mother on this one. You can’t really expect people under a certain age (or that haven’t worked big box retail) to know what a Code Adam is (even though you’d think they’d be curious, seeing it stickered on so many doors). Also, every time I’ve been in a Wal-Mart, the announcements are not exactly clear … I’m sure it sounded like “Crhamsdfad Adfaskjf,” rather than “Code Adam,” so it’s entirely plausable that she wasn’t able to make out exactly what they were saying (hence the “Code whatever” mentioned by her).

It strikes me as somewhat odd that the cashier would call attention to this particular person – I wouldn’t imagine very many kidnappers decide to go ahead and get their shop on with the stolen kid in tow (at the store from which it was stolen!) – it makes more sense to just let management/security do their jobs at the door (allowing the mother to be at a semi-centralized location to say “No, that’s not my spawn”). I think the cashier taking it upon themselves to call security over probably had something to do with Mr. Inferiority Complex Security Guard going all crazy on Ava’s mama – like she seemed baby-stealericious, or something. I’m not saying that the guard isn’t a total douchebag (who needs to be fired, post haste), but that he may have had a partner in douchebaggery. Can them both, I say.

(angry mother) Kudos to Stacy for not one-handedly beating the shit out of the guard, as well. I can’t say that I would be so calm as to only scream bloody murder in such a situation. Any person who demanded that I hand over my child to them is going to most assuredly not going to be able to make any of their own after I finished with them. (/angry mother)

All in all, Wal-Mart owes her more than an apology. I think free diapers for the rest of Ava’s diaper-wearing days would be a good starting point.

P.S. Comparing this to (insert Home Depot employee who was fired here) is a bit silly – it’s not as if the Wal-Mart guard SAW her steal a baby, whereas from what I remember, the theft was actually seen by the Home Depot employee(s). If Mr. Guard *did* see someone snatch a baby, I would send him a fruit basket for doing everything in his power to stop that person – but that wasn’t the case here.

Sounds to me like the guard was poorly trained in Code Adam procedures and handled the situation badly and the woman was a hysterical nutcase, exacerbating the situation. He shouldn’t have tried to take the kids, but everyone advocating that the woman just walk away and not allow herself to be detained is insane. The whole point of Code Adam is to ensure whoever has the missing kid can’t get out of the store.

@Phildawg: That’s exactly right. Everyone knows people on public assistance just walk around looking for handouts. That and they’re generally lazy, dumb and take up valuable space and oxygen. Nobody ever takes public assistance because of circumstances beyond their control.

In fact, it would probably have been better to just hand the kid over, since she’s poor and all. That security guard could have done a better parenting job because he’s probably not on any public assistance.

There should be some law that people who are on any type of public assistance lose all of their rights until they can take some personal responsibility to improve their circumstances. And as far as opinions about anything, forget about it. If they can afford to have opinions on Myspace, they can afford to take care of themselves.

THIS is what it takes to make people boycott Walmart? Not its unfair bullying of suppliers that cost American jobs; or the fact that it allows imported Chinese crap. WAKE UP PEOPLE. STOP exporting jobs overseas and saving 2 cents of every god damn thing. Have some pride in your country and pay a little extra. Don’t give me the every cent helps shit. They ONLY applies if you ABSOLUTELY WASTE NOTHING ON ANY frivilous item you can do without…which never happens.

@jwissick: “Fine. Then I wish that you are falsely accused of a crime that you didn’t commit and are forced through months, if not years, of legal hassles and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees just because some rent a cop exceeds his authority and decides you are the guilty one for the crime he did not witness.”

See, that’s not MY view. MY view is that I wouldn’t mind 10 or 15 minutes delay if the welfare of a child is at stake. *I* said *I* would wait a bit for the rent-a-cop, nothing more, nothing less.

YOU said that even if a kidnapper HAS A CHILD YOU CARE ABOUT WITH HIM that he SHOULD NOT STOP for a rent-a-cop.

So if you want to wish me 10 or 15 minutes inconvenience, then please do, that’s my view. Just as I wished you the natural consequences of your view :)

This is Stacy Arrington (the Walmart person). People I own my own business, I am not crazy. I only started cursing after the security guard was told 20 times this was my child!! I had already shown him my ID, the baby pictures etc!!

@jwissick: “You’re on a power trip.. You can either get off the trip yourself, or someone will take you off your trip when you push it too far…. While most people would prolly stop if you told them to… if you tried to stop me, you would get hurt… I do not take orders from you. Enuf said.”

He’s on a power trip? You’re the one making up things you wish were laws, and posting as if they were laws. You’re the one that says no one should be detained or arrested until PROVEN GUILTY.

I still find it funny that you ADMIT that following YOUR VIEWS could lead to lots of harm, but following a lot of other people’s views that would only lead to a minor inconvenience. And you’re offended that anyone would wish what you want to happen to other people would happen to you.

Well, now I know: If I ever want to kidnap a baby, I just need to disguise myself as a Wal-Mart security guard, because some of you would just give me your baby.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you you people? You’re just going to hand over your infant to any half-wit hero-wannabe who calls you a criminal? If a guard had tried that with my mother when I was a baby, the guard would have suffered the indignity of being beaten senseless by a five-foot tall woman.

All of you folks WITHOUT children, of which I suspect are the majority commenting, you have no idea. This was totally uncalled for and even the commenters curse that we usually lay in to folks who whine about getting gyped here is not appropriate. This Wal-Mart needs to get it’s substandard chinese-pants sued off. The store should be called “Woman who almost got her baby touched by Wal-Mart Rent-a-cops Store”

Actually, this is a response of a new mother (I do know that not every mother would react this way) who feared for her child. If the security guard came up and told her that there was an Adam Alert and explained the situation and she reacted this way, then yes I could see that she had some issues. But to just try and take the kid. Nope, not gonna happen.

@dbeahn: And all states allow for reasonable violence to be used to escape an unlawful detention — just enough to disable the would-be detainer. You have to have cause to arrest someone. No witness, no crime, no cause, no arrest.

Yes, I’m sure it was very frustrating and embarrassing for the mother (though she was taken care of to rectify the situation)… but I’d err on a person and their baby being detained before I’d err on a stranger and someone else’s baby being let go.

Screaming? Crying? Sobbing? Generally freaking out?Awesome lessons for the children.How about “I am more than happy to accompany to a manager so we can straigten this out. If my kid was missing, I’d sure want someone to keep an eye out for her.”

@ceejeemcbeegee: What happened to it? It simply didn’t exist. Court cases have repeatedly shown that for store security to detain someone, they must OBSERVE a crime taking place. That didn’t happen, so they crossed the line stopping this woman from walking out and crossed it even more when they tried to take something (the kid) from her. Had they actually touched her, that would have been assault.

@MBPharmD: Yeah, fine, say “we need you to wait a moment, ma’am.” That’s acceptable, and how most people are trained for those situations. But the guard tried to physically take her baby away from her. That’s the problem.

@thisaintsweettea: I’m going to make an ass out of u an me and assume that you don’t have kids. Because creepy people come up to me all the time, and try to hold my baby. People I’ve never met before trying to grab my kid. I don’t freak out, I turn away, make and excuse about how he might spit up on them. But in that situation, I think I would have freaked out and made a scene – it’s my baby and I have an issue with strangers taking him away from me. Most other moms are the same way.

@RvLeshrac: You either don’t have kids, or don’t care about your kids. There is no reasonable or intelligent argument to back up what the rent-a-cop allegedly did.
So unless you know something the rest of us don’t, sit down and shut up.

Some of you people are insane, how could you in anyway blame this Women?

It would be one thing if the Guard explained to her what was going on as a normal person should. Instead of tried to take the damn baby away from her which is…inexcusable and would be grounds for anyone to flip out.

You do not try to take a child from someone unless you know without a doubt they are stealing said child and this guy had no clue.

Any of you commenting about how this lady needed to spare 5 min, or should needs to relax have no idea what being a parent is all about.

Go near a lion cub and see what that mother does to do, harmless intent on your part or not. They call it instinct.

The problem here isn’t about civil rights….People will scream and cry to the heavens about how this poor woman’s rights were abused.This is about civility.There is ALWAYS a better way to handle things that DON’T include screaming, getting hysterical, and totally freaking out.Step one, stay calm. Step two, try to think of why this is happening. Step three, don’t be a jackass.I GUARANTEE that had she simply understood that the store was trying to find a missing baby and been helpful instead of a blithering fool, she would have been gone in two minutes.The problem here is similar to the stupid nonsensical issue some of you have with showing a receipt. COMPLY. You aren’t getting ‘damaged’ by showing your receipt and you aren’t damaged by dealing with security calmly and politely.Yeah, civil rights. Try not freaking out. It NEVER helps. EVER.No one is going to ‘take’ your baby.No one is accusing you of stealing.Show your receipt. Explain yourself calmly to the security guard in relation to your baby. Settle the f down.Rosa Parks was concerned with civil rights. Stop pretending that your receipt is like her bus stop seat.

@d0x: I bet the guard didn’t try to ‘take’ the baby away.That is a classic example of someone exaggerating to make their story sound ‘juicier’.There are a million things she could have done differently, starting with the very simple “I’m happy to speak to a manager, but you are not going to take my baby out of my hands thank you.”End of story. Manager comes over, sees you have all the baby gear, maybe calls the mother with the missing kid over, and you go home two seconds later.Put yourself in the frantic mothers shoes – the one who’s baby is missing (wtf is that about?).Security tries to stop a woman with a baby, who freaks out and runs out of the store. Store policy, and the law, dictates that they can’t technically do anything.Cut to an hour later, when they find the baby out in the parking lot dead.Happy now with your stupid civil rights?

OK – the security guard was way off base. BUt HOLY SMOKES “stealing a baby!?” Please have some journalist integrity on Consumerist. THis kinda of exaggerations is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

You understand that some people are going to believe they actually tried to steal a baby.

You were probably were just having some fun. But think of the context. Consumerist is about real issues and sometimes deve3stating problems. Please don’t turn it into a Perez Hilton site or some other trash.

While argumentatively all babies look a like, I very much doubt the Code Adam was called without giving a description of the clothing or other articles involved. Hence, perhaps the Loss Prevention Agent (which is their title) was relying upon something more than what the baby looked like.

Notwithstanding this, while the LP’s conduct might have been excessive when the Mother could account for the birthmark and and produce photo’s of the child. The Mother’s initial reaction was, in my opinion, unnecessary when she should have had some understanding in the event that it were her child missing and she would want everything done to recover the child.

“We’re getting really sick of these stories of unlawful detention by stores. Your rentacop badge doesn’t make you God.”

And that’s why the snarky comments here and on Fark and Digg and all the other blogs need to stop. Seems like every time I see a story that involves a clear case of false arrest / imprisonment, people get mad at the idea of the victim suing.

Rent-a-cops often DO think the badge makes them god. Only getting the crap sued out of them will change their mind.

@bohemian: he proper approach would have been to not let anyone leave the store, including this woman until the adam alert is sorted out. Not yanking her baby out of her arms like it was a $9 CD player she was trying to heist.

I suspect what happened is they first tried to keep her from leaving the store, and when she refused, they got really suspicious and panicked. Code Adam does state no one leaves, and if a woman with a child refused to wait, it sure would look suspicious. As many have said, you can’t believe everything you read on myspace. Sounds to me like both sides screwed up when faced with a situation that thankfully isn’t a everyday ocurance.

@Indecision: How do you know that for a fact? How do you know that at Joe’s Gorcery it does not mean “Apples spilled over floor, come clean them up”? Do YOU work there and know? No. Adam is a word used by many places (including police) as the phonetic for the letter A. It could mean that Adam the known shoplifter just entered the store. You have no fricking way of knowing what “code Adam” means in a store unless you work there. You are just ASSuming that it means a kid is missing.

@dbeahn: Hey, Jackass, THEY ARE LAWS. Don’t believe me? Talk to your lawyer. He will tell you that I am right.

I never said “no one should be detained or arrested until PROVEN GUILTY.” Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that there are criteria that must be met before some mall ninja can detain someone… and that there was NO way the CrapMart rentabacon could have met that criteria.

“YOU said that even if a kidnapper HAS A CHILD YOU CARE ABOUT WITH HIM that he SHOULD NOT STOP for a rent-a-cop” Wrong again Jackass. I never said that. I said the rent a pig had NO BUSINESS getting involved with the situation. He has no negotiation training. He has no experiance dealing with kidnappers. He has no idea if the person is armed or violent. HE DOES NOT KNOW SHIT and is UNTRAINED. If Stacy was a kidnapper, the rent-a-cop would be placing Ava’s life in danger by getting involved. What’s to stop the kidnapper from just snapping the kids neck in his attempt to escape.

Look, when you need an appendix out, do you go to the police for the surgery? Of course not. Then why do you go to a rent-a-cop to stop a kidnapping? He is just as ignorant about kidnapping and the like as the police are about surgery. Only a MORON would want a rent-a-cop to get involved with a life or death situation. Better to sit back a safe distance, take good note of what is happening and pass the info to the PROFESSIONALS… The police. Minimum wage rent-a-cops are not equipped to deal head on with a kidnapper. and your insistence that the mall ninja should / could stop a kidnapper just shows how ignorant you are when it comes to AJ and security.

Any Security guard worth his pay will tell you to piss off and just take notes and use the tools he has available to observe and report.

If that’s true, the guard was waaaayyy out of line asking for the child. He should know better. Asking/making her wait unless she could at least minimally prove the child was hers might be acceptable. I mean, who wants to just let someone out of the store if you genuinely suspect a kidnapping?

It seems that there should be more to the story, or the guard really was that persistent/stupid (who in their right mind keeps asking a woman to hand her baby to him?!). Did he make ANY sort of introduction/request first regarding a missing child? And even then, a simple “Someone in the store lost their child, we want to make sure he/she’s all right, is there any way you can prove this child is yours/can you wait until the mother of the missing child gets here,” makes plenty of sense. Who on earth wouldn’t do that?

Once again, we have “allegedly,” and you’re assuming that what the woman is saying is the absolute, unadulterated, completely undeniable truth.

I highly doubt that anyone told her to give them her baby.

And you’re the one that obviously doesn’t care about kids, since you’d be willing to just let the kidnapper/pedo waltz out the door with someone else’s child in tow. All he’d have to do is say “Oh, yes, that’s my (Bobby, Susie, Ava, whatever),” and be on his way.

False imprisonment? You are on a private property, they have every legal right to “detain” you. I will agree however that they were out of line this time. From my experience simply approaching the person, identify yourself, explain the situation you have on hand and request to see her ID and any other identification she may have for her and the child. This would have solved a lot of the problem and you would not have this situation. I have worked in law enforcement and security for 15 years and have seen pretty much everything, grouping security guards as “rent-a-cops” is pretty low. I will agree that there are a lot of guards who take their jobs too seriously, there are plenty of officers who are professional and conduct themselves properly.

It’s only unlawful detention/arrest if there is no probable cause. A baby is missing, this woman has a baby. The ONLY think the employees could/should do is detain the woman and the baby (and all others with babies) until the authorities arrive.

My read on the article: I suspect that they were rightfully detaining her until the baby fussed and she picked the baby up. At that time, they panic, thinking that she’s about to make a run for it and start (incorrectly) asking her to hand over the baby.

The clincher that makes me not side with the woman: the fact that she has virtually no perspective-taking skills. How would she feel if her baby was abducted? Her answer is that anyone who’s baby is abducted is a moron and at fault. Sorry, but that makes it clear to me that Stacy is self-righteous, short-sighted, and – for the most part – misrepresenting and misunderstanding the situation.

@RvLeshrac: “I highly doubt that anyone told her to give them her baby.”

Believe it. There are a lot of rentacops with ghod complexes. Most of the industry is severely under trained. I find it very easy to believe that a gung ho mall ninja could do this… thinking he was going to save the day and get his name in the paper…. then there would be no way the police force could turn down his application.

Give some people a badge and they turn into Super Security Officer Himmler.

@Buran: “And all states allow for reasonable violence to be used to escape an unlawful detention — just enough to disable the would-be detainer. You have to have cause to arrest someone. No witness, no crime, no cause, no arrest.”

Yes, but that’s not what he was implying. His comment was clearly threatening in nature, indication more than just “reasonable violence to escape”. He knows his rights! He just doesn’t think other people should have any rights.

@frowelishnu: shut up about Web2.0 jibber jabber. No i dont care/”understand”/care (yes, i don’t care twice) about it. Still doesn’t change that this is a MySpace blog as content.

And for the rest of you:
Stop with the “you don’t have kids” nonsense. It’s not a valid excuse for reacting the way she did and it sure as hell doesn’t make her look any more stable by pointing out that i dont have any kids.

The security guard (wrong or right in the situation) was not some bandit baby snatcher. She clearly stated that it was Walmart security. She obviously knew — Again, i am not condoning what he did, but, pointing out that the girl in questions, appears to be unstable based on her own account of the events. Walmart has not quite gotten to the point of being baby snatchers.

Gut reaction, instinct, fight or flight, whatever you want to call it. Those terms are used for animals who feel threatened, not adults.Shouting and crying and abandon your belongings? Maybe if she was getting robbed or physically attacked but not even her (most likely) exaggerated recollection of the events put her or her babies life in any danger what so ever.

Hell. If her brain “shut down” and went into survival mode, how can you even be sure that she recalls what happened properly?

She even says this in the first line of her about me: “Here you will experience the psychotic babblings of of one crazy person – ME!”

and calls her kid a “Miracle” then follows it up with “(literally)”. Look im not saying child birth and all that isn’t a simply spectacular event. But people who call their kids are (literally) a “Miracle”. They are crazy people. Sex + 9 Months does not equal a “miracle”. It equals the exact same thing to anyone else who does not use birth control and then carries their child to term.

Why would you argue with me anyway? Who the hell am i? I’m not for a second defending Walmart. Burn every store to the ground. I dont shop there.

This woman’s story is over the top ridiculous.

If it happened, i hope she wins a million dollars and more free stuff forever and ever.

Doesn’t change that crying (more than anything else) is just not reasonable from an adult who has done nothing wrong and is in a store.

I dont think it is unreasonable to expect ANYONE with a baby to wait inside the store while there is a missing baby alert. This is a bit different than not showing a reciept. The security guard is a moron if he demanded she hand over the baby. The reasonable thing to do is to have the woman wait until the baby is found OR at most call the police to come & handle the situation.

@Buran: “And yet AGAIN, people who uphold their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS get called “stupid”. The other day, it was “assholes”.”

Actually, you don’t have the “right” to endanger another person in the course of “upholding your rights”. It’s called “reckless endangerment” and it’s a crime. Our founding fathers were common sense kind of folks. One of them even wrote a book by that title. Common sense tells us that ONE person’s rights END when they start to infringe on the rights of another. In these cases, it’s best to use some common sense to keep things from getting out of control. Certainly screaming “OH FUCK NO OH FUCK NO LET ME THE FUCK GO!!!” in front of your child at the top of your lungs isn’t going to help in this sort of situation. One of the things that also isn’t mentioned clearly in this woman’s one-sided rant is whether they asked her to hand the baby over before or *after* she started acting like a maniac. She says it was “the whole time”. She DOESN’T say that it was the first thing he said. Then she tries to bolt and run with the child, leaving everything else behind. The action of a woman scared for her child? Absolutely. Could it also be the action of a criminal that thinks they’ve been caught? I’ve seen that show “Cops” a few times, it seems to me like they spend a lot of time chasing down people that run when they thing they’ve been caught in the middle of a crime.

Here’s an example. I have the right to free speech. That doesn’t mean I have the right to stand under your bedroom window with a bullhorn at 2am chanting my political views. I have a feeling you probably would call me a stupid asshole if I did that, even if I was just “exercising my Constitutional Rights”.

Technically, I also have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Go on – strap on a gun and trot into a bank and see if anyone calls you an asshole for “upholding your Constitutional Right”.

I have a Constitutional Right to pursue happiness. What if it makes me happy to get hammered and drive around town at 80mph, especially in school zones while school is letting out? Are you going to defend my Constitutional Right to pursue happiness?

If this story is true (there doesn’t appear to be any corroborating evidence) having a concealed carry permit or, better yet, open carrying if your State allows, it will quickly put a damper on this “problem”. Simply standing your ground and not being intimidated is more than 1/2 the battle–seriously. Wal-Mart security guards don’t get paid enough to risk their lives.

If this happened to my wife and child in my presence, I would give the store personnel exactly 1 warning:

“DO NOT touch my child, my wife or myself or prevent us from walking out of this store! Stay 10ft away! If you impede our progress in ANY fashion, I will respond with force! We will leave our purchases at the counter! I will call the police once we leave the premises and my family is safe.”

If anyone did not heed that warning, there would either be a seriously injured security guard or dead security guard in short order.

I respect the law and know my rights, but absolutely nobody would threaten my wife or family with bodily injury or unlawful detainment. I would, without a second though, give up my life and my freedom any day for their safety and well being.

In most states, any attempt at physical kidnapping automatically carries an assault charge. Also, in most states, you have the right to defend your person and those of your immediate companions from any/all forms of assault and unlawful detainment unless the assault/detainment comes from a sworn law enforcement officer with arrest powers undertaking a lawful police action.

@jwissick: “Hey, Jackass, THEY ARE LAWS. Don’t believe me? Talk to your lawyer. He will tell you that I am right.”

See, the problem is that you’re a moron, and don’t seem to understand that ALL LAWS apply, not just the ones YOU like.

And dumbass? What you SAID was “You can not deprive someone of their rights because you SUSPECT they committed a crime. Innocent till PROVEN guilty.”

It’s not my fault you’re too stupid to REMEMBER what you said, and too lazy to go look it up. When you ARREST or DETAIN someone, you are depriving them of their right to freedom, among others. So as it turns out, you CAN deprive someone of their rights and their freedom BEFORE they are proven guilty, no matter what a lazy dumbass like yourself SAYS.

“”YOU said that even if a kidnapper HAS A CHILD YOU CARE ABOUT WITH HIM that he SHOULD NOT STOP for a rent-a-cop” Wrong again Jackass. I never said that. I said the rent a pig had NO BUSINESS getting involved with the situation. He has no negotiation training. He has no experiance dealing with kidnappers. He has no idea if the person is armed or violent. HE DOES NOT KNOW SHIT and is UNTRAINED. If Stacy was a kidnapper, the rent-a-cop would be placing Ava’s life in danger by getting involved. What’s to stop the kidnapper from just snapping the kids neck in his attempt to escape.”

Go look at a milk carton you ignorant fool. Kids that are kidnapped are RARELY EVER found alive. Yeah, there’s all sorts of “maybe, possibly, if this and this and this happen” things that could happen. But any law enforcement professional will tell you, ESPECIALLY someone the specializes in kidnappings, that the kid’s chances are ASTRONOMICALLY BETTER even if someone untrained etc. etc. et al stops the kidnapper BEFORE they get the child alone. As I’ve mentioned before, since you say:

“If he witnessed Stacy grab the kid, then he can detain. If he did not WITNESS it HIMSELF, then he can NOT detain.

Come on people. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!! “

You are clearly implying that you would advocate a kidnapper with a child should know the guard can’t detain anyone, and therefore push on past. I hope you get the chance to test out with your kids how effective the FBI kidnapping division is, and I hope one of them actually says to you if they even find your child’s body “Damn. If only the security guard had slowed him down when he was trying to leave the store, that kid might still be alive today…”

Incidentally, you also said:

“Anyone can detain her IF and ONLY if they WITNESS the crime in progress.”

This is also not true, no matter how much you wish it was. All states have provisions under which a citizen’s arrest may be made even if the arresting person did not witness the crime in progress. You keep telling people they should “KNOW YOUR RIGHTS” but it seems you don’t know your rights, nor do you know the law. Here’s an example where you contradict yourself yet again:

“You said you stopped people from leaving a store? Unless you can produce a police ID, you try that shit with me and you are going to end up wearing nice pretty police bracelets. I WILL make a citizens arrest and press charges.”

A store employee CAN stop you from leaving a store. They have that right under certain circumstances, and they CAN stop you at any time. What they CAN’T do is hold you there against your will without cause. Again you prove your ignorance.

Regarding a “Code Adam”, please keep in mind that Wal-Mart is a private commercial facility and, though the protocol is a very good one, unless they witness a crime “in progress”, they have no right to detain ANYONE.

@jwissick: Another thing. How is it you know so much about security, but you missed the lesson on “don’t accept the hysterical rantings of someone in a fight or flight situation at face value before an investigation is done.”?

@thisaintsweettea: “Gut reaction, instinct, fight or flight, whatever you want to call it. Those terms are used for animals who feel threatened, not adults.”

Its clear that you have never been in a life or death situation.

@dbeahn: “Actually, you don’t have the “right” to endanger another person in the course of “upholding your rights”.”

God. You must be so tired of being wrong all the time. Yes, you do have the right to endanger someone to defend your rights. To defend my right to life I have the right to shoot someone threatening my life unlawfully.

Reckless endangerment has crap to do with rights. Watching Boston Legal does not make your a law expert. A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.

In Athens, Tn, just after WWII, people fought with rifles and bullets to defend their rights. It was not reckless endangerment.

Let me get this straight: a security guard, whose job is to observe and report and possibly to serve as a psychological deterrent to some crimes, stops a paying customer and who committed no crime and attempts to kidnap said shopper’s child.

There’s a reason that many states have concealed weapon laws — stay the hell away from my child.

Code Adam does not enable anyone in the store to detain anyone. In fact its quite clear in the fact that you shouldnt since a situation is far more likely to go to hell if you do, potentially endangering the child.

If that security guard had done that to anyone I was in line with, he WOULD have lost his life, and in most states I would have been cleared of all charges. I know people who have put security guards and bouncers in traction and received a pat on the back by the judge for the guard overstepping their rights.

I agree with what you said, and I’d like to add to the fact that I think it is sometimes normal for people to make a story seem more outrageous or interesting than it really is. A little extra adjective here, a little more description there. Add a little spice to a story, tell it a little louder and you get more attention. Maybe, just maybe, this is the case.

This is Stacy Arrington. Lets clarify some things here. I never cursed until after the security guard demanded my child about 15 times. I repeatedly told him no. I am not crazy or immature. I am simply a mother who after 7 years of trying and more miscarriages then I choose to remember have my baby girl. There is no one that has the right to take her from me much less tell me she does not belong to me. I tried to leave because I felt threatened. My wallet, diaper bag, etc mean nothing to me compared to my daughter.
I am 34 years old, self employed, NOT on welfare.. 90% of pregnant women had/have WIC! I am married with 2 other children ages 16 and 14. Am I suing? I dont know. I have been contacted by numberous media people. Please dont talk about me. You have NO IDEA (even my supporters here – which I thank) what I went through.

According to Stacy (the mom) the guard reached for her two and a half month old baby several times and when that didn’t work they blocked her exit. According to Stacy, they were so occupied with detaining her that they didn’t actually stop ay other women with infants.

This woman had a baby just a couple of months ago, her hormone levels aren’t exactly normal which partly could account for her reaction. For that matter so could sleep deprivation. While I probably wouldn’t have reacted the same way, I’d have given the security guard hell too.

And why the hell does it matter if this mother is receiving WIC, how does using a program to insure her child is properly nourished make her a less credible source? If she had said that her Costco card had her baby’s name on it or her membership to Whitebread Country Club would that have made her story more believable?

>”Um, If you think the baby is the abducted baby then you call police ASAP. You could detain her by telling her what they thought or follow the woman out and see where she goes. Chances are she went into a car, so you see the car and get the license plate and give it to the cops.”

And by the time all that happens, the person has already sexually molested the baby, sliced it up, slit its throat, dumped the body in a sewer drain somewhere and is on her way to Mexico. Good plan!

Anywhoo, the security guard at Wal*Mart screwed up – big time. Seems like there could have been a lot better way to have handled this situation.

I also would like to say they never “asked me” to go to a office. Nor did they tell me first off that a child was missing. The first words I heard were “hand over the baby”. I really would like all of this to stop. I am weighing my options.

Stacy – I’m not saying you were in the wrong at all. In fact, as I said, the security guard screwed up badly. I’m just replying to the previous poster who’s idea it was to let someone who has a suspected kidnapped child in their possession go out the door and into their car while waiting for the police.

Again, the guard screwed up completely. However, if there was the slightest chance the baby was the one they were looking for, I would understand a guard looking into the situation. Unfortunately for everyone involved, this particular guard didn’t use anything close to good judgment with his methods and execution.

@TheUncleBob: yes UncleBob I know you were replying to the previous post. I have just been bashed here as much as I’ve recieved support. I dotn even know how this story got all over the internet! I only posted it on my personal myspace. I have been bashed for cursing, which didnt happen right from the start, only after I was asked repeatedly to hand my daughter over. I’ve been called a welfare recipient, which I am not. The story is just as I posted it. I actually read on some site that quote “I looked young, and probably got knocked up”…. again not true and if anyone had taken the time to really look at my myspace would know that….

Thank you everyone who has supported me. I will not post here anymore (because someone is liable to start saying this isnt really me now). If anyone would like to contact me please do so through MySpace.

@jwissick: I do like how you can’t respond to my post enumerating all the times you’ve been wrong and the times you’ve contridicted yourself, so you pick another post, and respond with yet another load of dumbass.

@stacyarrington: I don’t mean to imply you did anything “wrong” – you reacted as best you could at the time in the situation. Which isn’t to say that it didn’t make an already bad situation worse.

Let me ask you a question – how would you feel if it WAS your child that was missing, and you later found out that a security guard COULD have stopped the woman taking her, but didn’t? I’m guessing you wouldn’t be all “Oh, I totally understand – it’s OK that you let her walk out with my child. You’re a security guard, it’s your job to just watch her steal my child and vanish.”

You should sue. That will teach all the security guards everywhere to ALWAYS err on the side of caution, even if it means allowing a child to be kidnapped, raped, abused, killed and dumped in a ditch. Who the hell do those rent-a-cops think they are, anyway?

@dbeahn: Hello. I said I would stop but this question was posed “what would I do”… I am not bashing the woman whos child was missing although I cant imagine how she could not notice a cart with her child being taken… however in my personal case here, I was NEVER told the situation until after the fact!!! If they had told me what was going on, I would have helped in anyway I could have.

Woah, momma … chill out. Even my fifth grade students know that to be respected, you must be respectful. Throwing a violent tempter tantrum in a public space with very little provocation is always a great way to earn the same treatment an inmate would receive … and it’s sad to see how little compassion you have for the mother with the missing baby. Shame on you.

Kudos to that WaMa manager for seeing through that lunatic’s junior-high reaction, solving her issue quickly, and ultimately protecting the rights and comfortability of the shoppers all around her. I can’t say that I would’ve been able to do the same.

If anyone ever tried to that shit with my kid they would need to live the rest of their lives in a diaper, because their spinal cord would be snapped in half and draped over their neck like a lay.
If I had a kid of course.

@dbeahn:
You stated:
“Technically, ANYONE has the right to make a citizen’s arrest, depending on the state laws that apply. Here’s a brief summary from Wikipedia:

‘All states other than North Carolina permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police.’

So according to you own post in order for someone to make a lawful citizens arrest, the citizen must have WITNESSED the crime.

Also, I believe from previous posts you stated that you live on the west coast of FL. If that is the case then I would suggest you try this and see how long it takes for you to get shot. In the state of FL you can legally shoot someone if you believe your life is threatened.

I assume that those replying that the mother overreacted or that the rent a cop did the right thing are not actually parents themselves. If so your opinion is noted but invalid in this discussion.

I am not at all surprised by the lady’s reaction, like it was stated before this is fight or flight. What would have been an appropriate response “Oh, here stranger take my baby, inspect it and if you feel like it return him/her”. I wouldn’t trust a Wally World employee to carry a TV out from the stockroom without fear of them dropping it.

I would like to think I would’ve done a better job of keeping my cool, but keep thinking that faced with a stranger insisting (demanding?) that I hand over my child I would have gone off the deep end. Shogun Assassin style with the baby under one arm and the cold hard steel of my samurai sword in the other, liberating the heads of anyone in my path.

At no point should the security guard should have asked the lady to hand over her baby, or make any motions towards the child. They are not trained deputized law enforcement officers and as such have no business conducting themselves in this manner.

@stacyarrington: Stacy said, ” Am I suing? I dont know. I have been contacted by numberous media people. Please dont talk about me.

Err, if you don’t want people on the interwebs to talk about you, then don’t f-ing post your story for everyone to see! I don’t care if it was just on your “personal” MySpace site. MySpace is a public venue– you posted your story because you wanted people to read it. So to then turn around and tell us not to talk about you? No how no way, you DON’T GET TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Way to be an attention-seeker there– a great example you’ll set for your daughter one day!

“Moron parent if you ask me if someone can just roll your child away from you and now you’ve misplaced your baby”

You may or may not have noticed that there are a lot of children that go missing. I guess all of those parents are just “moron parents”.

How can it happen? I dunno. Kid throws something behind you and you turn around to pick it up? Purse strap breaks spilling stuff everywhere and you’re distracted for 5 seconds? Maybe she had a 14 year old with her that started pitching a fit?

You never did answer my other question, either. Would you be congratulating the security guard that let some child molester walk out the door with your child for not harassing that person?

“I was NEVER told the situation until after the fact!!! “

Then how about a little compassion “after the fact”? Maybe a little understanding? No, what you do is bash the parent who’s child was missing.

I don’t have kids, but I have friends who have kids, friends that are DAMN GOOD parents. I know they’ve had moments when they’ve looked away for just a second, looked down and their child has wandered off. Guess all you’d have to say to them is that they’re moron parents.

“You have NO IDEA (even my supporters here – which I thank) what I went through.”

And how do you think what you went through compares to a parent who’s 6 year old child was kidnapped, and 16 days later the only thing that was recovered was a severed head??? I wonder if the parents of this boy [en.wikipedia.org] think that a security guard “harassing” an innocent woman would have been too much of a price to pay to have their son alive. What about you Stacy? Is what you went through too high a price? Or would you rather have Ava’s severed head found in a ditch so that no one ever has to go through what you did?

What kind of parent, incidentally, DOESN’T KNOW what a Code Adam is? Or an Amber Alert?

For all you people screaming that the guard shouldn’t have stopped her, maybe you should check this link: [www.missingkids.com]

Note item 5:
If the child is found accompanied by someone other than a parent or legal guardian, reasonable efforts to delay their departure will be used without putting the child, staff, or visitors at risk. Law enforcement will be notified and given details about the person accompanying the child.

That’s right. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children advise that employees stall if possible. In this case, I’d have to assume that Ava matched the description, so no chances were taken.

Just to sum up, what REALLY gets me is the total lack of compassion after the fact, and the bashing of the woman with the missing child.

Stacy, I hope you are able to live with yourself. Such a big deal has been made already, and I’m sure once you talk to FOX it will get even bigger. You alone will do more damage to the CODE ADAM program than can be undone for YEARS, and as a direct result children that could have been saved will be abducted, raped, molested and killed. But you’ll be able to find comfort in the fact that they had “moron parents”.

@Sudonum: Wow, too lazy to read even a short wiki article. Here’s the part you missed:

“All states other than North Carolina permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party.”

Good lord, all you had to do was to not be too lazy to read TWO sentences instead of one. Too much to expect of you I guess.

More from you: “So according to you own post in order for someone to make a lawful citizens arrest, the citizen must have WITNESSED the crime.”

Um, no. According to the fact that you’re too lazy to read the second sentence, you assumed that. Laws vary, but it’s not REQUIRED that the citizen witness the crime, as you attempt to assert.

I find it amusing that no one even considers the fact that she might have presented a biased testimony. i mean, seriously? You have a run in with a guard at walmart, it frazzles you, you go home and complain about it on your web page. You might forget some details, or omit them, that are fairly important, like maybe the guard did try rationally at first to detain her for questioning and she, as some so beautifully put it, attempted to give him a “face full of pepper spray”. IF, and that’s a big if, this story is 100% true, then yeah, the guard’s an idiot. But I sincerely doubt that.

@dbeahn: I highly suggest that you not try anything, for your own good. People tend to panic when cornered unexpectedly, especially when they don’t know why or don’t know who is doing it.

It is not worth your life to butt into something that you shouldn’t be involved in. Cops will tell you this too — don’t try to apprehend even someone who you know did something wrong. Call in the police instead.

Besides, if you are directly threatened or anyone other than a policeman orders you to stop and/or come with them, or someone attempts to take you somewhere without your consent, you may legally use force to escape, so your ‘target’ might well injure you, and do you really want to live with that?

After reading posts by THISAINTSWEETTEA & DBEHAN, all I can say is that I weep for humanity. Thankfully, their posts are immortalized here for all of internetity. They will stand by their posts proudly, while others shake their heads sadly and turn away. I’m not sure they’ll ever understand why.

For all of you who seem to think that the only possible choices here are “fascism & safe kids” vs. “anarchy and dead babies” I have one phrase for you: false dichotomy.

The correct action for the store employees was a middle ground that did not violate law but still kept everyone safe. Because they did not do that, they will lose a lawsuit. And those of you suggesting that you’d do the same (or more) than the rent-a-cop, you’d lose too. And you wouldn’t even be heroes for it. The true hero would be the person who explained the situation to mothers WITHOUT trying to snatch away the babies, and who calmly called police and tailed anyone refusing to leave the store. THAT person would save the child’s life without the awful compromises that some of the other posters here are so willing to embrace.

It’s always a wonder that so many legal arguments about criminal theory get thrown around on a consumer blog/comment thread.

Anyhow, here’s my two cents: Assuming that the security guard asked the mother to hand the child over, the mother was under no obligation to comply and her reaction doesn’t seem particularly extreme, considering her unawareness of the invocation of Code Adam (a program which, it’s important to note, hasn’t seen nearly as many headlines or public service announcements since AMBER alert came about). Code Adam doesn’t obligate any person to hand over a potentially wayward child to a store employee. It only requires that the employees use reasonable measures to delay the adult without putting anyone at risk.

IMO, if the security guard did ask for the baby to be handed over, he clearly didn’t consider that making such a demand actually places all parties at considerably greater risk. Detaining by simply asking the adult to step aside for a moment until management/LEO appears is both sufficiently vague and significantly safer.

The assumption that all people act rationally when asked to hand over their children is absolutely ridiculous.
Imagine, hypothetically, that the baby was indeed the missing child who instigated the Code Adam – the guard would have created a situation where the kidnapper could threaten harm in order to get away. In comparison, a true mother’s frightened reaction to a request to hand over her child without having been offered any reason doesn’t seem extreme at all. Even if the announcement had gone over the intercom, (to reiterate a point previously stated several times), a simple reminder that the store sought to ensure the safety of its customers should have been given and could potentially have instantly defused a very tense situation.

It’s also worth noting that few, if any, Walmarts display any information about Code Adam policies so that shoppers will actually know what “Code whatever” refers to.

@Rob916: “False imprisonment? You are on a private property, they have every legal right to “detain” you. “

You are incorrect; private property does not contain magical powers that permit random detention or otherwise exist outside the common law that all are bound to follow.

Your comment history indicates you’re relatively new here, but this particular topic and the more-myth-than-reality of shopkeeper’s privilege have been discussed into the ground and then that space of ground has been stomped upon until a giant hole opening a new passage to the other side of the world.

OK, first it was, “Why don’t you just hand over your receipt to the wannabe cop at the door ’cause it’s easier than asserting your legal rights?”

NOW it’s, “Why don’t you just hand over your BABY to the wannabe cop at the door ’cause it’s easier than arguing?”

Sheesh! Why don’t you guys just carry a tube of K-Y and a spare rubber glove so Mr. Would Be Homeland Security Guy doesn’t have to work bare-fingered when he wants to search for that MP3 player Electronics says is missing?

I see a lot of comments suggesting that Wal-Mart is fully within its rights to detain somebody without witnesses or other evidence that a crime has been committed by said person. Let us remember that Wal-Mart (and all of its employees) is treated as a civilian person under the law, no matter what the impression of a rent-a-cop might suggest. They simply do not have any authority that you or I don’t.

So suggesting that a civilian may forcefully stop another from moving somewhere freely is clearly slipping into Kafkaesque irrationality.

You may have opinions on what the woman and security guard should or shouldn’t have done, but if the story is somewhat correct (and I highly doubt Wal-Mart’s POV would change things THAT radically) then the security guard was the only one breaking the law.

If the cop was under the assumption that this baby was stolen, this lady seemed to be doing everything she could to fit the profile of a baby thief. I don’t know enough about the situation to judge, but I do know what I would do.

First I would calmly ask for the evidence they had that led them to suspect me. Then, IF I found their answer acceptable, I would ask what proof they would like and provide it if necessary. Under no circumstances would I actually allow someone to take my child.

You need to do a poll on how many of these sick commenters DON’T have children. You’ll see that those who don’t have a mouthful to say about what happened here. And the poster that says “I’m sure babies get snatched in liberal stores and the media doesn’t report it” 1. So Wal-Mart is a Neo-Con store? 2. You need meds. Badly. And not chinese made lead filled flinstone vitamins, I mean MAJOR MEDS.

@aboyd: “The true hero would be the person who explained the situation to mothers WITHOUT trying to snatch away the babies, and who calmly called police and tailed anyone refusing to leave the store.”

So you believe stalking an innocent mother would be legal? Or are you suggesting telling a kidnapper that you’re onto them and then allowing them to leave is a good idea?

Yeah, both of those are excellent suggestions. Don’t keep the person in a public place, let them get the kid away where they can kill the primary witness. There’s a REASON that the Center for Missing and Exploited Children advocate STALLING a person that may have a stolen child with them – because it’s FAR less likely they will hurt the child in a public place with lots of people around. They’ve researched the statistics and determined that the best course of action is to attempt to stall the person if at all possible. If you have research that says letting them take the child and hoping you can “tail” them is statistically safer for the kid than what the Center for Missing and Exploited Children recommend, I’d be happy to read it.

I’m advocating that in a circumstance where a child is at risk, as a decent person, you should be willing to be inconvenienced for a few minutes. I weep for humanity because people like you apparently think a child’s life isn’t worth 15 minutes of your time.

@Woofer00: “IMO, if the security guard did ask for the baby to be handed over, he clearly didn’t consider that making such a demand actually places all parties at considerably greater risk. Detaining by simply asking the adult to step aside for a moment until management/LEO appears is both sufficiently vague and significantly safer.”

I agree. Somewhere along the line people seem to have missed that the guard did make mistakes. I’m just disagreeing with the people that keep posting “Know your rights! If you kidnap a kid, then a security guard can’t and shouldn’t stop you!”

@crankymediaguy: “Sheesh! Why don’t you guys just carry a tube of K-Y and a spare rubber glove so Mr. Would Be Homeland Security Guy doesn’t have to work bare-fingered when he wants to search for that MP3 player Electronics says is missing?”

So a child’s life is worth approximately the same as an MP3 player? That is, after all, the direct comparison you just made.

@Buran: With all due respect, there is no strawman here.Everytime a story hits the consumerist, folks trot out their ‘civil rights’.The problem is that while they are your rights, some things are not a big deal.Showing your receipt is not a big deal.It doesn’t damage you in any way. It is not a sign of the coming apocolypse and it is not an example of the ‘man’ trying to get you. They want to send a message to shoplifters that a security person might ask to see their receipt. That’s it. The two second it takes to do so is a much easier path than fighting, getting into an altercation, and distracting the police from doing their jobs. Big deal!I am all about consumer rights, but what is the point? Let’s say all companies drop their policy of checking receipts. Congrats, you’ve saved yourself 15 seconds. Thanks for putting up an hour long fight and wasting 59 minutes and 45 seconds of your day so honest Americans like me don’t have to feel ‘put upon’.It’s a ridiculous argument that doesn’t make sense.Show your receipt, go about your day. Civil rights struggles are only necessary when there is a reasonable wrong being perpetrated. What’s the big deal? NO ONE has been able to explain it to me without calling me names and implying that I am a ‘sheeple’.Since you seem to have the time and patience to protest every single minor inconvenience like receipt checks, why don’t you show the same patience when explaing the whole point behind it?It seems to me that you and others are making mountains over molehills. And it is equally disturbing that many seem to accept one side of the story as fact without applying any logic to the situation. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You seem to want to apply that to the complaining customer all day long, while denying the same to the security guards and companies in questions.Justice is supposed to be blind and is not supposed to favor one side over the other. Why are you so willing and ready to assume that the complainant in every situation is ALWAYS correct, honest, and innocent?Just like a person is an entity, under the law a corporation is as well. As is a security guard. ALL parties are supposed to be considered equal and innocent. Taking one’s side over another because you have a preconceived notion of truth or bias against a big company is not an example of fairness, but quite the opposite.

And while the rent-a-cop was wasting time harassing Stacy, how many other babies went out the door of the place without being stopped?

Furthermore, if you people think that this check is so necessary to prevent kids going off with people they don’t belong to, you’d better start lobbying for police to be stationed at every exit of every building to “baby check” each and every purported parent/guardian. See how far you get with that before you become the laughingstock of the nation.

Feel free to try and make them a laughing stock and see how far you get.

Here’s a list of folks that disagree with you and don’t think they’re a laughingstock:

Code Adam Participants

This is a partial list of retailers and other public facilities that have implemented the Code Adam program. Also included in this list are states where the Attorney General and other law-enforcement agencies are helping by providing information about the program to their communities.

Can we please leave this alone and let me handle MY business. The only reason I ever posted this on my MySpace was because this is how I keep in touch with my friends and family. If you all want to be updated as I update the situation then do what half the nation seems to be doing (lol), read my blog! This is really becoming aggrivating. I am not trying to be rude in any way because that is not me, but dont all of you have better things to do?

@pinkbunnyslippers: Yes, I know. Apparently, according to JW, if the person in front of you isn’t paying attention and is 5 seconds late getting started when the light turns green, you’ve been “unlawfully detained” and “falsely imprisoned”…

@stacyarrington: Hi Stacy. While I don’t have children, and playing devil’s advocate, I’m unable to fully process your side of the story as the complete and unadulterated truth, I do want to say I apologize if this is aggravating you to have your private life splayed for the world to see. But I have to agree with another poster here who said that if you wanted it to remain your business, you should’ve kept it that way, and that means not posting on the internet, no matter how “private” you felt the forum may be.

Maybe you should make your profile private or to only selectively allow the family that you want to keep updated on your life the ability to see it. That way, you can be assured that none of us are interfering with your business…

…because right now, it’s not yours anymore. It’s the internet’s. And you can’t have it both ways.

@dbeahn: THANK YOU for spamming half the page with that list. Wouldn’t a URL have done the job?

Anyway, it’s a protocol for having staff look for the child. It’s not justification to unlawfully detain people, which they do not have the power to do. All the store policies in the world do not trump criminal statutes and constitutional law. This has already been covered in this discussion elsewhere.

@killavanilla: I don’t think it should come down. We have every right to comment and discuss a public Internet posting and it is not trade secret or anything else that should be removed. If you don’t like being talked about on the Internet, what are you doing posting publicly?

I have a blog that I only want my friends to read. So, I have it set up so that you have to (a) know where it is and (b) log in to see or comment on entries.

By not restricting viewership of a page, you are granting anyone the right to read it, and if they wish they may discuss it, and under fair use law, even reproduce excerpts from it for discussion purposes.

And besides, there are nearly 30 comments on this story. It’s a little late to say “oops we shouldn’t have posted that”.

Besides, stores illegally stopping people from walking out the door is something we discuss here these days…

@dbeahn:
Wow, calling me lazy three times in the same post. What are you in like the 5th grade? No where in ANY of the times I have responded to comments you made in any post have I resorted to calling you names. Yet you regularly jump on people and start with the name calling. And no I am not referring to any flame ways you have gotten into, because you seem to get into a lot of them. Funny how that is.

Now back to you response. I was not too lazy to read the entire quote. I read it several times. So lets take a look at it again:

“All states other than North Carolina permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party.”

So the second line, that I was “too lazy to read”, states that in the case of misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies NOT WITNESSED BY THE ARRESTING PARTY, laws vary greatly by state.

Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure you will), but I believe kidnapping is pretty much a felony in all 50 states. So referring back to the first line, and the situation as described in this post, unless you actually witness the crime, and you aren’t in North Carolina at the time, you cannot, as a citizen, make an arrest or detain anyone for kidnapping, without opening yourself up to civil and criminal liability. And in the great state of Florida you might even get shot, legally, for your trouble.

So tell me again what I am too dumb, lazy, or stupid to understand?

Oh, and one last thought, even though the Wiki quote you provided doesn’t seem to mention it. Do you think that since you actually have to witness the crime to make a “Citizens Arrest” for a felony that the bar is going to be set any lower for lesser crimes?

@Sudonum: “Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure you will), but I believe kidnapping is pretty much a felony in all 50 states. So referring back to the first line, and the situation as described in this post, unless you actually witness the crime, and you aren’t in North Carolina at the time, you cannot, as a citizen, make an arrest or detain anyone for kidnapping, without opening yourself up to civil and criminal liability.”

You’re wrong. The fact that “laws vary from state to state” is not the same as “you cannot, as a citizen, make an arrest or detain anyone for kidnapping”.

ANY time you make a citizen’s arrest, whether you witnessed the crime or not, you open yourself up to civil and criminal liability.

What you said in your first post, however, was:
“So according to you own post in order for someone to make a lawful citizens arrest, the citizen must have WITNESSED the crime.”

That is totally wrong, and ignores completely the second sentence. It depends on what state you’re in.

Incidentally, it doesn’t matter if you’re in Florida or any other state, you ALWAYS have the risk of being shot. I’m not aware of any state that currently has zero gun violence. They have gun violence in many countries where private ownership of handguns isn’t allowed at all.

Or are you saying that someone that is kidnapping a child, which is as you pointed out a felony, would be SURE to obey gun laws, and therefore it’s only certain states where you’d be risking getting shot?

Yes, the security guard was in the wrong. Yes, Walmart is at fault for not properly training it’s employees. However, people *should* be restrained from leaving the store during a “Code Adam”. Anyone who says different is a complete fool.

Situation 1: A “Code Adam” occurs, people are detained until the Police arrive. Turns out the kid was hiding somewhere and no crime occured. Is it seriously worth your time to hire a lawyer for this? Sure as hell no DA is going to prosecute for this.

Situation 2: A “Code Adam” occurs, no one is detained. Someone walks out with a kidnapped child. Now it *is* worth hiring a lawyer to sue the company since sympathetic juries will award you millions. The DA *will* prosecute. Horrible publicity for your store.

If you were a store manager, would you detain (even if it is illegal) or not detain? A little common sense here please.

@killavanilla: It may not be a big deal to you, but it is a big deal to other people when their right to refuse gets turned int outright illegal responses by the stores.

And yes, civil rights are a VERY big deal.

“Since you seem to have the time and patience to protest every single minor inconvenience like receipt checks, why don’t you show the same patience when explaing the whole point behind it?”

I have explained it before: the store is trying to force its customers to help it do its job, which is fine. it may ask. It crosses the line when people are prevented from leaving when they refuse. I’ve never said I have a problem with their asking. I’ve said I have a problem when someone blocks others from leaving when they say no.

Some people just don’t seem to understand where the actual issue lies.

“Just show your receipt”? I’m sick of the attitude that “if you would just submit to illegal searches, everything would be fine” that you and many others seem to trot out.

Don’t tell me what I should and shouldn’t do and when I should inconvenience myself for someone else’s sake.

“Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You seem to want to apply that to the complaining customer all day long, while denying the same to the security guards and companies in questions.”

Because the customer didn’t commit a crime by walking out of the store without bowing down to the request. The store did when they blocked the customer from leaving. It doesn’t matter who is right” as long as the store can’t prove that a crime was committed — and if they could, we’d know about it because the police would have been called and the individual arrested.

“Justice is supposed to be blind and is not supposed to favor one side over the other. Why are you so willing and ready to assume that the complainant in every situation is ALWAYS correct, honest, and innocent?”

See above. I will always be on the side of the individual who clearly had a crime committed against them — unlawful imprisonment and/or unreasonable search and seizure. And because stores do not, not, not have legal authority to detain individuals without proof of a crime (if they had it, they’d take the shoplifter to their holding area while the police were called!), the victim is the person who refused to show their reciept.

I will always refuse. If you don’t like it, that’s not my problem. And if you don’t like the fact that there are other people who don’t like the “just give up your rights, it’d be easier”, then respectfully, I don’t care.

@dbeahn: Thank you! I always enjoy a good discussion. I’ve goofed before and gotten a little out of line (had a bad day once) but hey, as long as people manage to keep the personal insults down, discuss on! (I didn’t like the spat above in which someone accused someone of being too lazy to read, for instance. sheesh).

@GuruSteve: OK, “assholes”, “jackasses”, now “complete fools” for those who wish to exercise their right to leave. What, are those who know their rights and USE them going to be “terrorists”, next, the latest buzzword for people we don’t like?

Would I do it?

No. You’d be amazed at what being on the wrong end of an illegal-detainment suit can do to your repuation and your employer’s, not to mention the bad press that you’ll get once the story gets out that you illegally detained people. Worse if you did it knowingly. And you might get fired, too (as I think staff should who hold hostages) — it’s illegal for stores to chase people into the parking lot even if they see shoplifting, after all.

Common sense? Respect peoples’ rights. If you want anyone to be able to detain, call 911 and summon police help! That’s what the emergency number is for! But even the police have to have probable cause, themselves.

Look people. If you really want people to be detained by the store when ever some jackass calls a “code whatever”, then CHANGE THE LAW! Till then, get over your delusions of grandeur and deal with the fact that it is illegal and morally wrong to detain someone whom you have not witnessed commit a crime.

Let me also remind you that code adam is POLICY and NOT LAW (except in federal buildings.).. And my rights trump your policy every time.

@dbeahn:
Since we seem to be arguing semantics regarding the issue of citizens arrest, and perhaps the fact that I typed that first post late last night and possibly didn’t clearly elucidate my position, I see no point in continuing to discuss this. We both seem to agree that in order to make a lawful (meaning relatively free from civil and criminal liability) citizens arrest for a felony in any state but North Carolina you have to have witnessed the crime. Lesser crimes vary by state. Is that correct?

Regarding getting shot. I am under no illusions that a gun toting criminal has any compunction to regard any laws. My point was that a law abiding citizen who FEELS they are being threatened in the state of Florida has the LEGAL right to shoot the person threatening them. Therefore if this incident had taken place, as the OP describes, in Florida instead of Maryland, she would be within her rights to shoot the security guard who accosted her. Also that you, as a Florida resident, should be damn careful about trying to detain someone for a citizens arrest, Code Adam or not.

And lastly, until you can prove it to me otherwise, the BTC person is a girl. :P

If that had been me trying to leave, I think I would have handled it a bit differently. Probably by calmly explaining that I was armed and that further attempts to grab, hold, restrain or impede me would result in serious injury to them. Thanks for understanding and have a nice day.

And you REALLY believe you live in a state where there hasn’t been a law passed allowing for reasonable measures in extrodinary circumstances? What state are you in, I’ll be happy to look up the statue that shows you’re wrong (as usual).

You really believe there’s a judge ANYWHERE in any state that would find in your favor if you tried to bolt the door with a child matching the description of the missing child in tow and someone stopped you? If you think that anyone in law enforcement hasn’t at some time been touched by a tragic missing child case, then you must have an IQ similar to your shoe size.

Perhaps you should get over the fact that “civil rights” don’t give you carte blanche to endanger another person. If you think they do, I suggest you try it and see what happens.

“I had to work at Wal-Mart last night. I wore a “Birthday Boy” button and customers kept wishing me “Happy Birthday,” so that was good.”

There’s also a running thread about the “Barista Boy” he thinks is cute and is interested in. At one point he posts this:

“Things have been running hot and cold with the barrista barrio boy. I found out his name. George. Not Jorge, but George. Hmm. Rather pedestrian. I was hoping for Raul or Alejandro or something. Not George.

He “dropped in” at Wal-Mart to see me again. But he had another guy with him. That equation cancels out to zero. He was noticeably cool to me on Tuesday night, sort of blowing me off when I went in to Starbucks, so that was a minus.”

Now, if TBC person was a girl, it wouldn’t matter that Barista Boy has another guy with him.

That’s my “evidence”. It was enough to convince me that BBCAmerican is a gay man.

Wal-Mart has NOTHING to do with the care of children, and it shouldn’t be their responsibility nor right to detain innocent people just because some kid is missing. How about the PARENT keep an EYE on THEIR kid?

Remember, it’s not about policy. Fuck policy. If policy breaks the law then the company is opening itself up to being sued, and rightly so. And before you say that the law should be changed, just consider what a slippery slope that is. Any asshole could then wrestle someone to the ground just because a purse got snatched in the vicinity. I’ll quote Penn & Teller: “When someone says ‘there ought to be a law…’, there probably oughtn’t.”

Tell me this – if Wal*Mart (or any other store) has “NOTHING to do with the care of children”, does this mean when the kid gets away from his/her parents and does something stupid, like, say, climb onto a mirror, knock the mirror over and get killed, does this mean Wal*Mart shouldn’t have to pay out because the kid was stupid and was climbing on the mirror?

If you didn’t want this private matter discussed on the Internet, then perhaps you shouldn’t have posted a text file about it to the Internet.

While I believe the security guard handled your situation inappropriately and that repercussions up to termination are appropriate, I am beginning to wonder if certain traits of your personality exacerbate many situations for you.

They (Wal-Mart) shouldn’t be sued unless they carelessly positioned their items in such a way that customers could easily hurt themselves. Consider the high shelves in a lot of these supermarkets. A kid could easily climb these things unsupervised and break his neck falling down, but you can’t really blame the store for simply having high shelves now can you? So I usually err on the side of holding the parents responsible for the child, unless a clear injustice has occurred. And if they don’t look out for their kid, it doesn’t mean someone else should be expected to step in and do their job for them.

Stacy, I support you 100% but I have to tell you – WIC *IS* essentially welfare. It’s funded by taxpayer dollars so you can get food at the store without having to pay for it. Some taxpayers might say that they never signed up to have their tax dollars go to feeding you and your baby.

As for your claim that 90% of women have utilized WIC – that is not true. This page links to the latest data on WIC participation numbers: [www.fns.usda.gov]

In 2006, about 8 million people participated in WIC. The US has about 300 million residents. That’s about 2.7% of the population participating in WIC.

Can we please leave this alone and let me handle MY business. . . . dont all of you have better things to do?

Oh dear Lord, no. We have nothing better to do which is evidenced by the flood of comments on this article.

Sorry, Stacy, but this article and its comments are just delicious. You have attempted baby theft followed by protective momma bear, followed by internet jack-asses without children who think that momma-bear should have relinquished her baby to the complete stranger on a bizarre power trip.

I know this is your life, but for the rest of us it is just a ton of fun to argue about.

First off I do not have to explain anything to anyone on any website, lets get that perfectly straight. The only people/person that needs to know the whole story is my family and my attorney if I go that route. I honestly could care less about this or any other website featuring this. My husband and I appreciate the support when its given and have laughed at the nay sayers comments. These sites and everyones comments do not make my case beneficial or not!

As I have stated before, I never posted anything to this site or any other. Only my own MySpace, how it got on the numberous sites its now on I dont know.

I will answer this: I have no idea where the woman was. Maybe she was at the front door, I have no clue. She was not at the register with me.

People have said I wasnt cooperative. Thats wrong. I was not told what was going on until after they “cleared me”. And after being upset like that, no, I did not want to stick around. I wanted to go home. I never stated sticking around was an inconvience for me at all. In normal circumstances had this not gone down the way it did, I would have helped look for the missing child. I would have gladly waited while they did a lock down.

I have been bashed for the header on my MySpace “the psychotic babblings of one crazy person – ME!”, I got that from a very funny book I once read! Its a joke between a friend and I.

Look a my MySpace, I am a fun loving person… I am very family oriented. My kids, my husband, my father and sisters are all my top people. I am not crazy for Gods sake. I flipped ou finally after a guard tried to repeatedly take my daughter from me, PERIOD! Did I curse? Yeah. Did I yell? Yeah. Did I cry? Most certainly, it was the scariest thing I think I’ve ever been through! I didnt care about my wallet, money, diaper bag etc…. after having someone try to take your child, telling you the whole time that your child isnt yours, I just wanted out of there! Everything else is replaceable, my daughter isnt!

I am an educated person. I finished school, went to college, and am currently in school part time furthering my education even more. I pay my bills, pay my rent, take care of my kids.

I have been bashed for calling my daughter a “miracle”… I’m not sure if that was here or else where but to us (my husband and I) she is. We have been together for 7 years and have had 20+ miscarriages. I was told we probably would never have a baby together. Then Ava happened….

No one, ever will take my child. No one politely asked me to wait…. all I got was “ma’am hand over the baby…” When I asked why, I was told because she wasnt mine. Can any of you people imagine what I was feeling? I was terrified…. I tried to continue about my business and the rent a cop kept demanding her reaching his arms out to take her. NO! Repeatedly!!! Then I got mad, upset, hysterical…whatever you all want to call it.

I’ll tell you what, no matter what anyone wants to say, I KNOW I did the right thing! I had no proof at the beginning this person was really a Walmart employee… so what just hand my child over to a stranger…. NO!

I am being bashed and you know what, I DID NOT ask for ANY of this! Not these assumptions by people who dont know me or my family, not to be detained if you will….

I do have to wonder about the policies of Consumerist.com for posting such a story without the consent of the party involved.

I mean, they are perfectly allowed to post this story (concerns about copyrighted photos and text aside, mind you)… But when the person the story is about has made it pretty clear that they don’t really want their story posted here – a site that is supposed to be for the customers, I really have to wonder…

Under which state’s law? Different states have different laws as to what does and does not constitute unlawful detainment, so I’m curious to know which law from which state you are citing with this statement.

@stacyarrington: “I am being bashed and you know what, I DID NOT ask for ANY of this!”

Um, yes, you did ask for this. You posted it publicly on the internet. You didn’t set your blog to “private”, so you were posting publicly. You called Fox news and ASKED them for attention. It’s a little late now to try and say you didn’t ask for any of this. You DO NOT call Fox news if you want to keep a matter private among your friends and family.

You do have my sympathy because I’m sure this is far more attention than you wanted, or ever imagined.

“I am an educated person. I finished school, went to college, and am currently in school part time furthering my education even more. I pay my bills, pay my rent, take care of my kids.”

I hope you are educated. I hope and pray that you will THINK about the effect and repercussions of a lawsuit. Changes will be made to protect stores from more lawsuits like yours, and children will be allowed to leave stores with people they are not supposed to be with. Yours is without a doubt an extreme example of good intentions that freaked someone out, but at the end of the day, there was no harm done beyond your feelings being jumbled.

If you go forward with a lawsuit, that would be saying quite clearly that your feelings are worth more than the life of even one child.

@bluegus32: “internet jack-asses without children who think that momma-bear should have relinquished her baby to the complete stranger on a bizarre power trip.”

Has anyone actually made the comment that she should have relinquished her child? I’ve suggested she should have asked them to call the police, or called the police herself, and held on to her child until they arrived, but I don’t remember anyone saying she should have handed over the baby…

But then, no one ever bothers to pay attention to what someone is ACTUALLY saying. I’ve said repeatedly that she had every right to be upset if the guard REALLY told her to hand over the baby.

But somehow, people read “she has every right to be upset if the guard told her to hand over the baby” as “wow, she’s stupid and should have just given the baby to the guard no matter what.” I’m not sure if they can’t read, or if they’re dense.

@dbeahn: “I hope you are educated. I hope and pray that you will THINK about the effect and repercussions of a lawsuit. Changes will be made to protect stores from more lawsuits like yours, and children will be allowed to leave stores with people they are not supposed to be with. “

Just thought that needed to be said again.

Three things for Stacy: 1) Stacy, if you don’t care what we think, don’t respond. Your responses betray your true feelings.2) You’ve learned that there’s no such thing as privacy when you make public postings on the internet. Consider that for the future.3) It seems difficult for you (it’s a skill many don’t pick up until their late thirties), but practice perspective taking here. Try to imagine that your child has been taken. Consider that there are babies snatched from attentive parents regularly. No child can be watched all the time and kidnappers don’t exactly work slowly. Take a deep breath, go back and read dbeahn’s comment again, and think how you’d like things to be handled if your baby is the one missing.

Posting ANYTHING on the internet essentially gives everyone the right to reference it, though not necessarily the right to duplicate it. No different from throwing you movie script into an audience – once you put it out there, you can’t take it back.

This is, of course, why the government is so gung-ho on regulating sites like myspace – people are too stupid to understand that putting pictures of yourself in your underwear on the internet is, at best, a bad idea.

dbeahn, as I have stated now on many occasions if you read my prior posts… if Walmart would have handled it correctly, told me the problem etc, instead of their first reaction demanding my child, I would have gladly waited it out! Instead 20+ times they asked to HAND OVER MY CHILD! Not go wait, nothing….

@RvLeshrac:
Again, as I said, Consumerist is perfectly allowed to post about this story (copyright concerns about the text and image aside though – I’m sure there could be a copyright issue there). However, considering the site is supposed to be “for the shoppers” and this particular shopper has stated she is not interested in having her story posted here, it just seems like bad policy.

Can we, as free human beings, go around and tell stories about everything we’ve seen/heard about?

Yeah.

Should we, as caring human beings, take the feelings of others into consideration before doing so?

@stacyarrington: “dbeahn, as I have stated now on many occasions if you read my prior posts… if Walmart would have handled it correctly, told me the problem etc, instead of their first reaction demanding my child, I would have gladly waited it out! Instead 20+ times they asked to HAND OVER MY CHILD! Not go wait, nothing….”

Yes, I hear you. I’m simply asking (as I have before) that *looking back*, now that you KNOW what was going on, you show a little compassion and understanding for the mother who’d had her baby STOLEN. I’m asking that you look into your heart and THINK about the lives of the children that will be stolen, raped, molested, tortured and murdered as the result of the lawsuit you’re thinking about filling. If you are truly the educated, family oriented, fun loving person you keep saying you are, then think about the blood that will be on your hands if you WIN your lawsuit, take the money, and as a result force changes in the systems (CODE Adam and Amber Alert) that have been PROVEN to safe the lives of children just like your little Ava. You, quite rightly, wouldn’t hand over your daughter to a stranger. PLEASE PLEASE don’t make it easier for some stranger to steal another woman’s child because you want to see if you can milk a settlement from WalMart.

You seem very focused on how “badly you were wronged”, but in truth, you were just scared and angry. You were in a very public place with multiple people around you, neither you or your child were in any actual danger. It’s really starting to sound like it’s all about the chance to make some money from a lawsuit.

@dbeahn: Sadly, the damage has probably already been done. And it’s not really this woman’s fault. Because the stupid security guard overreacted, I’m sure, at least the local stores to this woman’s area, are already reviewing their policies in such a situation.

And now, one guard is going to hesitate and that hesitation is going to give the wrong person the few seconds they need to do something that is absolutely going to change a lot of lives forever.

@thomamas: “dbeahn, any parent should see a (potentially armed) man demanding demanding she hand over her daughter as a danger.

Also, just because he has a uniform doesn’t mean he’s not a kidnapper — last year an fake nurse kidnapped a newborn in Lubbock.”

A few things – first, I never suggested she hand over the child. Second, she was in the middle of the checkout line at a WalMart in the middle of the day – she was surrounded by lots and lots of people, AND there was a Code Adam in progress. NO ONE was going anywhere out of that store with ANY child until the police arrived. Neither she nor her daughter were in any danger.

Third, this is a woman that had zero sympathy for the woman who’s child was ACTUALLY missing/stolen. Stacy’s comment was that the woman who’s child was stolen was a moron parent. Stacy STILL hasn’t apologized for that, nor expressed anything resembling remorse or sympathy.

@TheUncleBob: I’m not sure the guard did over react. We have yet to see what the statement of other witnesses are. We have yet to see the review of the security tape. It could well be that the damage is only the direct result of this woman posting her rant and trying to make herself a victim to set herself up for a payday lawsuit. I’m not saying that IS the case, but since we only have one side of the story, we don’t know it ISN’T the case, either.

I mean, this is the woman that said she “never wanted any attention”, and yet called the TV News and asked them to do a story on what happened. I mean, come on. Who calls the news because they want to keep something private?

“NO ONE was going anywhere out of that store with ANY child until the police arrived.”

Wrong. Security guards (civilians) don’t have the authority to proclaim it a crime scene, nor hold “suspects” unless a crime has been witnessed. Simply having a child with you is not enough to determine probable cause. A lot of parents go shopping with their kids, you can’t hold all of them just because of something arbitrary like Code Adam. Remember, it means “missing child”. The world does not stop spinning because some kid ran off.

You fully have the right to hold someone until the police arrive, assuming that the authorities were called.

There’s a legal difference between tying someone up or locking them in a room indefinitely and securing the building until the police arrive.

If a crime has been committed, you’re not legally allowed to leave the scene anyway if you may have information related to the crime.

If she’d just run straight out of the building without saying anything to them, the police may have shown up later at her home to book her and remove the child until a confirmation of the kid’s identity could be obtained. It would be unlikely (the other child was probably found wandering the store), but it is certainly NOT outside the realm of possibility.

the rent-a-cop must have missed the day they taught the,”how to properly detain a person if you think they may have kidnapped a baby.” class, or the,”dealing with hysterical people that may be attempting to kidnap a baby” course.

they might have gone about it the wrong way, but common. won’t someone please think about the children.

@Auranaut: “Wrong. Security guards (civilians) don’t have the authority to proclaim it a crime scene, nor hold “suspects” unless a crime has been witnessed. Simply having a child with you is not enough to determine probable cause.”

First, we’re talking about whether she and her child were in danger – they weren’t. Second, you don’t need “probably cause” to hold someone, you need it to arrest someone and/or get a warrant or file charges. To detain someone, you need “reasonable suspicion”. Such as having a child with you that matches the description of a missing child. [en.wikipedia.org]
“Courts have ruled that a stop for a reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime and appears agitated, when a person matches a description of a suspect, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers. However, a reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity.”

Again, we’re talking about whether she and her child were in danger. They weren’t. They were in a public place, with multiple people around, and the worst case possible was that they’d be stuck there until the police arrived and verified it was her child. No, you can’t “hold all of them”, nor do you need to. You only need to hold the ones matching the description of the missing kid.

Point is though, that all kids pretty much look alike. A security guard doesn’t have the authority to confirm somebody’s identity, so if a kid is missing doesn’t mean he has the right to bug other people and their children.

Here’s the routine for Code Adam (from Wikipedia):

“1) If a visitor reports a child is missing, a detailed description of the child and what he or she is wearing is obtained.

2) The employee goes to the nearest in-house telephone and pages Code Adam, describing the child’s physical features and clothing. As designated employees monitor front entrances, other employees begin looking for the child.

3) If the child is not found within 10 minutes, law enforcement is called.

4) If the child is found and appears to have been lost and unharmed, the child is reunited with the searching family member.

5) If the child is found accompanied by someone other than a parent or legal guardian, reasonable efforts to delay their departure will be used without putting the child, staff, or visitors at risk. Law enforcement will be notified and given details about the person accompanying the child.

6) The Code Adam page will be canceled after the child is found or law enforcement arrives.”

Notice #5. It says THE child, not ANY child. Security should only do this step if they have a 100% positive ID on the child. They didn’t. Also notice how none of it says they should detain bystanders or anybody not fully confirmed to be a part of the situation, so some form of “lockdown” is completely out of the question.

Because we live in a free society, #1 and #2 are crucial so you don’t end up holding innocent people. Security should in fact gather as much information as possible BEFORE acting. Sure, a kidnapper might get away with a baby once in a while. It happens. But giving up your freedom for security is clearly the wrong thing to do.

“If a crime has been committed, you’re not legally allowed to leave the scene anyway if you may have information related to the crime.”

But no crime was committed. Kids run off all the time, it’s not an excuse to call a lockdown. I got lost in one of the biggest shopping malls in Sweden once, but nobody locked the exits and forced everybody to stay inside. You must realise how ridiculous that idea is.

If a man lay bleeding on the floor, then that might be a good reason to keep everybody around.

Don’t be a moron. It’s not like you can ASK a 5 month old “Hey, are you so and so?” And even with an older child, are you saying that if a 5 year old looks scared shitless but, under threat from the kidnapper, says “Yeah, this is my mom” you should just LET THEM GO?

Also, if you can’t identify the child 100%, are you saying that you believe they should let them go? How do you verify 100% that it is THE child without stopping or stalling them?

“Sure, a kidnapper might get away with a baby once in a while. It happens. But giving up your freedom for security is clearly the wrong thing to do.”

Right. So in other words, if you happen to be in line in front of me, therefore impacting my freedom by holding me up, I should just shoot you in the head, because it’s wrong of you to feel secure standing in a line since it’s interfering with my freedom.

Part of “freedom” is knowing you’ll be safe. Your right to “freedom” doesn’t include having the right to endanger someone else. That’s why toy makers don’t have the “freedom” to use cheaper lead based paints. It’s why we have laws about “reckless endangerment”. It’s why there’s such a thing as “criminal negligence”. For someone that seems to think freedom is so important, you seem to know very little about the laws that give you as much freedom as you have. Part of having freedom is living up to the responsibilities that come along with it.

Having a child with you that matches the description of the missing one gives “reasonable suspicion”. The whole point of the concept of “reasonable suspicion” is that it allows the vast majority of “innocent” people to NOT be inconvenienced while still allowing for the safety that is provided for under the rule of law. In THIS case, there was reasonable suspicion, so they stalled her waiting for the police or to make a positive ID on the child. The other option, the one that would ACTUALLY be infringing on people’s freedom, is that they lock down the store.

And here’s an update from Stacy’s blog: “They just got my story….. it was headquarters. Yes I got their name but I will not post it here. I am getting an attorney. Anyone know a very good one?”

Yupper. Just one more example of white trash, knocked up at 17 (she’s 34 and has a 16 year old, remember?) case of you can take a girl out of the trailer park but you can’t take the trailer park out of the girl. She doesn’t give a shit about the safety of anyone else’s children, or by extension her own, not if she thinks she can make some fast, easy money.

Hmmm, lets see, what do you know about me, the trailer trash. Do you know I skipped a grade. I was married at 17 when I had my son and had been with his father for 4 years at that point. Nope not trailer trash. Went to high school, graduated early in fact, went to college, got a degree in early Childhood Education and Special Education. Stayed married to that husband for 15 years. He cheated on me, I left his sorry ass and found a real man and had my daughter. I am still continuing my education and take classes on Saturdays!

In case your either blind or just plain stupid let me refresh your memory of what has been stated prior. Itw as NOT that I didnt care about the other child. I did not know about the other child until I was being lead out of Walmarts front door.

Do yourself a big favor… talk about something you know about. You were not there, you only know what I have allowed anyone to know, what I wrote or write. And you certainly dont know me.

Get a life. Get away from your computer for five minutes will ya? What a pathetic life you must have… when you have to sit in front of a computer to read about someone elses life!

If you had any sympathy, you wouldn’t state publicly that the mother with the stolen child was a “moron parent”.

Married at 17 when you had your son, so you may be right, I may have been wrong. Are you correcting me and you were knocked up at 16?

Speaking of moron parents, that sure sounds like the kind of parent that would have a kid that got knocked up at 16 and married at 17.

As for having a life – I’m not the one posting publicly about an incident “I never wanted any attention for” and I’m not the one calling the news because “I don’t want any attention”. It’s interesting that you say I can’t possibly know anything about you from your actions and the information you’ve posted, yet although I’ve said next to nothing about myself, you know me well enough to tell me I need to get a life.

Never in my life would I have ever thought I’d root for WalMart for anything for any reason. You’ve changed that. I hope WalMart’s lawyers destroy you in court, and make your life a living hell out side of court, digging through your past, pulling out every skeleton you have in your closet, and making your children hear it all from their friends and classmates. You don’t give a shit about keeping children safe, you’re just in it for the money, and you’ve made it clear you don’t care that other innocent children will suffer and die as a result.

@stacyarrington: Stacy.Stop coming here.It’s only going to drive you crazy and make you angry.There is literally no good reason for you to come here, unless you simply enjoy torturing yourself.People are going to try to pick apart your story based on what they read.They weren’t there. So they will make assumptions at some point.Correcting those assumptions isn’t going to make them stop.I understand what you are saying and trying to do here. Stop wasting your time and raising your blood pressure.Why care what anyone else thinks, especially people on the consumerist when you are the only person who really knows what happened?

@killavanilla: “There is literally no good reason for you to come here, unless you simply enjoy torturing yourself.”

She likes the attention. You know, the “attention she didn’t want”. Apparently when someone as highly educated as Stacy doesn’t want attention, she posts on the internet, called the 6 O’Clock news, and then keeps posting updates on the internet.

“Why care what anyone else thinks, especially people on the consumerist when you are the only person who really knows what happened?”

I’m betting there will be lots of other people who really know what happened, and video tape of it too.

@stacyarrington: I would assume someone who has a higher degree in Childhood Education would value all childrens’ rights and safety. I’m sorry to say that with each passing comment you make, that gets harder and harder for me to believe.

Anyway, if you are in talks with a lawyer right now, you probably can’t be talking about it in a public forum like this, so if I were you, I’d shut my trap and move on with my family and my daughter and my court case.

@dbeahn: I get it dbeahn.I know what’s up. My suggestion had literally nothing to do with my asessment of the story anymore. Stacy is getting wrapped up in a squabble she shouldn’t be even entertaining, any way you slice it. Stacy, settle down and stop logging in to the thread. It doesn’t matter what anyone else here thinks. Just stop. I can tell by the posts you have put here that it is upsetting you.Either that, or you are a troll, egging on a fight for the fun of it.It’s okay.You handle your business. Ignore the fight. If your story is accurate, fighting about it here isn’t going to resolve or resolve the situation.If you’re story contains inaccuracies or exaggerations, coming here isn’t going to convince people that they don’t exist. For all we know, you aren’t even the person from the story.Now, I’m pretty sure there is a better chance that if YOU stop, others will too. Plus, it just isn’t fair to ask the entire consumerist community to NOT post about the story. You are one, they are many…

I’m surprised no one commented on the fact that a person who has just snatched a baby doesn’t typically go wait in line at the register and calmly check out with their purchases, giving time for the alert to be raised. Any security guard with a brain should have recognized that if this woman had just snatched that baby she would have been exiting the store as quickly as possible to get away, not calmly waiting in line for a moron cashier who “is staring at Ava the whole time as she is scanning my items. Infact several times she had to scan them more than once because she was so preoccupied with Ava. She then excuses herself before giving me my total and uses the phone at her register to ask for assistance and gives some “code”.” If this woman had just grabbed a baby, she would not have stayed in line with a cashier who was acting suspicious and making a call for help. The security guard should have realized all this before he ever approached the woman with the baby.

Regardless of the intelligence of the security guard, the mother handled herself very poorly, escalating the situation through her own actions, instead of just calmly stating that she was not handing her baby over to anyone and asking immediately for a manager to come handle it. Remaining calm is always the easiest way to deal with any situation, if she had not become irrational and started yelling and screaming, the entire scene could have been avoided.

BOTH the mother and the security guard handled the entire situation very poorly.

I’m sure a lot of parents will agree with me on this, but try to take my child out of my arms, you might get a golf club to the head. Parents will go to the ends of the earth to protect their children, and we all know it. You simply don’t approach a mother and tell her to hand over her 3-year-old. Period. I would have expected her to kick his fat ass. I’m surprised she was only screaming at the top of her lungs.

You simply don’t say “Ma’am, hand over your child.” You NEVER say that. You calmly explain that there’s a missing child and that you would like her to wait here for a minute while you go get the missing child’s parent. As a parent, she most likely would understand. and besides, the “missing” child was probably sitting in the toy department.